( 1 ) THE petitioner is plaintiff in O. S. No. 669 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. He filed the suit for delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property. e. , 700 Sq. yards of land forming part of Plot No. C16, IDA, Uppal, together with compound wall and gates as well as asbestos covered sheds. The suit is also for mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 18. 1. 2006 from Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) for the purpose of setting up an industry. As he could not utilize the entire extent of land, he allegedly entered into licence-cum-hire agreement dated 01. 1. 1997 with the respondents/defendants who agreed to erect structures on the demised plot, after obtaining necessary permission and sanction from appropriate authorities. As per the said agreement, the period of license/lease was ten years with an option to renew the same. In 1999, having come to know that the respondents are raising structures without necessary permission from appropriate authorities, petitioner got issued notice calling upon the respondents to vacate the suit schedule premises, in vain. Therefore, he filed the suit. The suit is opposed by the respondents inter alia on the ground that they entered into lease-cum-rent agreement and that it is not a licence. They also denied all the allegations made by the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE suit is coming up for trial. At that stage, petitioner filed. A. No. 127 of 2007 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, (the Act, for brevity), praying the trial Court to pass order to mark copy of the agreement dated 01. 1. 1997 as secondary evidence. In justification of the said application, petitioner alleged that the original licence-cum-hire agreement is in possession of the respondents and that in spite of notice by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), respondents failed to produce the original document. He also alleged that copy/carbon copy of the document, which remained with the petitioner, may be received as secondary evidence. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial court by an order dated 02. 3. 2007 declined to accept the document as secondary evidence while observing that the document is a lease deed, that the document suffers from stamp duty and penalty and that the same cannot be received as secondary evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Rama Rao, submits that when the original document is in the possession of the other side, the plaintiff is entitled to produce secondary evidence after giving notice to the other side. Nextly he submits that at the time of execution of the agreement on 01. 1. 1997 a carbon copy was prepared on which both the parties signed and therefore the same can be received as secondary evidence duly impounding for the purpose of stamp duty and penalty. He also submits that when the trial Court heard the matter, petitioner also agreed that he is ready to pay the stamp duty and penalty in case of necessity. Opposing the revision petition, Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel for respondents submits that after receiving the notice to produce original document, respondents issued reply denying the availability of the original document and therefore under Section 65 of the Act, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to mark the copy as secondary evidence. Secondly, he submits that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents is lease and in the absence of proper stamp duty, the document cannot be accepted. According to the learned Counsel, if it is found that the document offered as evidence is not properly stamped, the trial Court can impound but a copy cannot be impounded for the purpose of stamp duty.

( 5 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the order of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document