1. Heard Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant had been served and none represents the respondent/defendant.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Revision petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved of the order made in I.A.No.1442/2008 in O.S.No.251/2004 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The said application was filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act (in short hereinafter referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as “Code” for the purpose of convenience) to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in respect of the agreement dated 21-1-1981 and affidavit dated 7-8-1989. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal after recording reasons came to the conclusion that such documents cannot be permitted by way of secondary evidence and ultimately the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred.

3. Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through Section 8 of Notaries Act 1952 and also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 63(2) & (3) of the Act and Section 65 of the Act as well and further strongly relied on Banarsi Dass Vs. Maman Chand AIR 1992 P&H 145 and Pandurangan Vs. Sarangapani and another AIR 1982 Madras 372 and would contend that in the light of clear legal position, the order made being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Heard the Counsel.

5. The Revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1442/2008 in O.S.No.251/2004 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal under Section 65 of the Act and Section 151 of the Code praying for permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of agreement dated 21-1-1981 and affidavit dated 7-8-1989. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the petitioner had filed certified copies of the agreement dated 21-1-1981 and sworn affidavit before Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal. The original of the agreement dated 21-1-1981 was in between the defendant and M/s.Kulothama Development Corporation, a registered firm and since the said document is in custody of third party, the petitioner was unable to file the original and mark the same. The petitioner also obtained sworn affidavit of respondents filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer which was notarized and he obtained the certified copy of the said affidavit. The original of the said affidavit is in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda and the same could not be produced. In the said circumstances, the petitioner prayed for permission to lead secondary evidence.

6. Counter was filed denying the very execution of the agreement dated 21-1-1981 and it is stated that relating to these documents no foundation as such had been laid in the pleadings and in the absence of the same, permission to let in secondary evidence cannot be granted. Several other further averments also had been made in the counter.

7. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal having formulated the Point for consideration: Whether the petitioner can be permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of copy of agreement dated 21-1-1981 and also sworn affidavit dated 7-8-1989 ?, referred to Section 65 of the Act and also observed that relating to these documents since no foundation had been laid in the pleadings, such permission cannot be granted and accordingly the said application was dismissed.

8. Section 8 of the Notaries Act 1952 dealing with Functions of notaries reads as hereunder:-

(1) A notary may do all or any of the following acts by virtue of his office, namely :-

(a) verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument;

(b) present any promissory note, hundi