1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2008 in I.A. No.486 of 2008 in O.S. No.583 of 2000 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy district, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act, 1872’) to permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence to prove the contents of the agreement of sale dated 05.02.1986, was allowed.

2. The petitioners herein are defendants 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 to 15, and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff, in the suit. The other respondents herein, who are defendants 2, 5, 8, 16 and 17 are shown as not necessary parties to this revision petition.

3. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts are that, the plaintiff filed the application stating that, he filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the defendants basing on an agreement of sale dated 05.02.1986; that, after filing of the suit, the plaintiff shifted his house on 27.2.1999 and while shifting the house, the original agreement of sale was lost; that, he made several efforts to trace out the original agreement of sale, but the same could not be traced till the date of filing of the petition, and therefore, he filed the petition seeking permission to receive the notarized copy of the agreement of sale dated 05.02.1986 as secondary evidence.

5. The defendants 1, 3 to 13 and 15 to 17 filed their counter denying the averments in the petition and stating that the main suit for specific performance of contract is filed basing on a fake, forged and created agreement of sale dated 05.02.1986; that, the defendants neither sold the schedule property to anybody nor signed nor put their impressions, on any document, and that they have not received any consideration nor issued any receipts; that, when the original agreement of sale was misplaced and not traced, how the Notary attested its copy without seeing the original, is not explained; that the photocopy of the document containing attestation of Notary is created one; that, the plaintiff did not give any paper publication or lodge police complaint when the basic suit document was lost; that the Notary or attestation by itself is fraud and there is no legal sanctity in the eye of law. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, held that, prima facie, the petitioner had shown that the original agreement of sale has been lost beyond recovery while shifting the house of the plaintiff in the year 1999 and that the Court is entitled to reject any document which is irrelevant and inadmissible at any stage of the case, and accordingly, allowed the petition. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.

7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper ?

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the first respondent has not given any particulars as to how and in what manner, the original agreement of sale was lost; that the affidavit filed in support of the application does not contain particulars of circumstances under which the original has been lost; that the petitioners/defendants are seriously disputing about the very execution of the agreement of sale dated 05.02.1986, and therefore a photocopy of the disputed document cannot be admitted as secondary evidence; that the photocopy of the document, which is not capable of being compared with the original, cannot be admitted as secondary evidence. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

The learned counsel placed reliance on several decisions, which will be referred to, at appropriate time.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the first respondent has given proper explanation with regard to