( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is directed against the order dated 5-1-2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, West and south, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application LA. No. 2840 of 2003, filed by the petitioners in O. S. No. 932 of 2002, for calling the document, namely carbon copy of the Memorandum of Settlement Deed lying with the Mandal Revenue Officer, serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, who is one of the defendants in the suit is that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to them, the suit schedule property belongs to one Anantha Ram, who died leaving behind him, his wife Sattemma as legal heir. Subsequently, Sattemma died. Anantha Ram and Sattemma died childless. Anantha Ram is having one brother and sister. After the death of Anantha Ram and Sattemma, the property devolved upon their legal representatives. There was a settlement among the legal heirs, and a Memorandum of Settlement Deed was executed on 18-12- 1993, and a carbon copy thereof was filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioners, since the date of execution of the Memorandum of settlement Deed, they have become the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and the said Memorandum of Settlement deed is necessary for adjudicating the matter. Stating so, they filed the above LA. to call for the copy of the Memorandum of settlement Deed, which is lying with the mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, ranga Reddy District. On the other hand, the respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, filed counter stating that the Mandal revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga reddy District, issued a certificate stating that the carbon copy of the Memorandum of settlement is lying with him. It was contended that the carbon copy cannot be marked in evidence, and as such, there is no necessity for calling for the same for adjudicating the matter.

( 3 ) THE Court below, considering the rival contentions, held that when the original is not lying with the Mandal Revenue officer, the carbon copy, even if called for, cannot be marked in evidence, and holding so, dismissed the LA.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendants and the learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs. The very same contentions as were raised before the Court below, were urged. I have also gone through the impugned order and the material on record.

( 5 ) THE petitioner-defendants have not mentioned anything in the affidavit filed in support of the LA. whether the original memorandum of Settlement Deed is lying with the plaintiffs or is in possession of any other person. They have not even stated whether they have taken any steps for summoning the document. Under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Evidence Act ) certain steps are required to be taken for summoning a document for marking in evidence. In the absence of any steps having been taken by the petitioners, as are required to be taken under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, the question that arises for consideration in this C. R. P. is whether the carbon copy of the Memorandum of Settlement Deed, which is lying with the Mandal Revenue officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy district, can be summoned and marked as secondary evidence in the suit?

( 6 ) TO consider this question, a reference to some of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, be made. Chapter V of the Evidence Act, deals with documentary evidence. Under Section 61 of the Evidence act, the contents of the documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. What is primary and what is secondary is explained in Sections 62 and 63 of the Evidence Act. Section 64 of the evidence Act relates to proof of documents by primary evidence. The document must be proved by primary evidence except in cases falling under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act. Sec