M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff filed this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having been aggrieved of the orders, dated 21.01.2015, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla of Karimnagar District, passed in I.A No. 611 of 2014 in O.S No. 10 of 2012 filed under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requesting to permit the plaintiff to lead the secondary evidence by producing and exhibiting the copy of the registered sale deed, dated 05.08.1970, bearing document No. 1933 of 1970, to prove the material averments in the plaint in regard to plaintiffs title and possession over the suit schedule property.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter) and of Sri. P.V Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants (the defendants, hereinafter). I have perused the material record.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in support of the aforementioned request, in brief, is this:

The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants 1 to 4 for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule lands and for recovery of vacant possession of the same from the defendants 1 to 3 and also for declaration that the registered sale deed, dated 16.07.2011, bearing Document No. 3886 of 2011, executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant is null, void and not binding on the plaintiff and for rectification of the wrong entries in the revenue records, other reliefs and for costs. The defendants 1 and 2 having filed a written statement are resisting the suit. The plaintiff filed into Court, the certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 05.08.1970, bearing document No. 1933 of 1970, (hereinafter, CC of the registered sale deed). The original sale deed was lost and inspite of the plaintiffs best efforts to trace it out, he could not trace it and it was lost beyond recovery. Hence, the plaintiff filed the certified copy of the registered sale deed. The plaintiff has to prove the material averments in the plaint and also his title in respect of the plaint schedule property on the strength of the registered sale deed, the certified copy of which is filed into Court. Therefore, he may be permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing and exhibiting the certified copy of the sale deed in order to substantiate his case and to establish his right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property.

4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff while reiterating the above stated case of the plaintiff would submit as follows:

The document in question is a registered sale deed duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar concerned. Along with the plaint, the CC of the said original registered sale deed was filed. The original document being of the year 1970 is a more than 30 years old document. Inspite of the best efforts, the plaintiff could not trace the original document and it is lost beyond recovery. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the CC of the registered sale deed. The registered sale deed is a private document. Since the original registered sale deed is irretrievably lost and it could not be recovered, a certified copy of the said registered sale deed was obtained from the office of the Sub Registrar concerned and was filed into Court. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is clearly stated that the original is lost beyond recovery and permission is sought to file the CC of the registered sale deed. Thus, a foundation is laid for seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence. The sale deed being of the year 1970 is a thirty year old document and as it is registered, it cannot be said that it is fabricated or forged for the purpose of the suit and in anticipation of a suit to be filed in the year 2012. The CC of the registered sale deed was granted by an authorized Public Officer. The plaintiff pleaded material averments a