Heard Ms. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr.Mohd. Shafiuddin, learned counsel representing Mr. J. Prabhakar, counsel for the contesting respondents.

1. 2. The civil revision petition is filed as against the order made in I.A.No.644 of 2008 in O.S.No.588 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The petitioners as plaintiffs filed the said suit O.S.No.588 of 2006 praying for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale. The said application I.A.No.644 of 2008 in O.S.No.588 of 2006 aforesaid was filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter for short would be referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) praying for reception and admit all the documents specified in the application as secondary evidence. The procedure of serving notice for production of the originals had been followed. The learned Judge by order dated 11.4.2008 came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to adduce Photostat copies of the documents, but, however, can obtain the extracts of sale deeds and GPA documents from the Registration Department and can produce them and so also the petitioners also can obtain the certified copies of pahanies and can produce them as documentary evidence on their behalf and hence the petitioners are not entitled to adduce the Photostat copies of documents as secondary evidence as prayed for and accordingly dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

.3. Ms. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties in the respective pleadings and also the contents of the notice issued under Section 66 of the Act and the reply filed thereto and further had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and the stand taken in the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel would maintain that the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge cannot be sustained since the copies of the registered General Power of Attorney specified as items 7 and 8 cannot be obtained from the Registration Department in the light of limitations and prohibitions imposed by Section 57(3) of the Indian Registration Act. The learned counsel also would further maintain that it is not the case of the other side that conditions specified under Section 65(a) of the Act had not been complied with, when the said conditions are satisfied the application for reception of the documents as secondary evidence should have been allowed by the learned Judge and after recording certain reasons the learned Judge had chosen to dismiss the said application. The counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 65 (e) and (f) of the Act as well and further had drawn attention of this Court to Sections 63 and 66 of the Act and would further maintain that inasmuch as the conditions are satisfied the dismissal of the application is not justified. Further, the learned counsel made certain submissions relating the aspect of public documents. The learned counsel also would maintain that as far as pahanies are concerned, these are copies of the certified copies obtained from the revenue office, but, however, as far as other documents are concerned these are all Xerox copies of the original documents in the

.custody of the opposite party and in view of the fact that the conditions specified under Sections 65 and 66 of the Act having been complied with the reasons recorded by the learned Judge that copies can be obtained from the Registration Department is an unsustainable reason. The counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate her submissions.

2. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mohd. Shafiuddin representing Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing