ORDER :

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, in I.A.No.855 of 2010 in O.S.No.77 of 2006 and in I.A.No.854 of 2010 in O.S.No.46 of 2004, dated 21.01.2015. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.77 of 2006 whereas defendants in O.S.No.46 of 2004. The Original Suit No.46 of 2004 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for Specific Performance of the contract in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 30.03.1996 whereas Original Suit No.77 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioners for Permanent Injunction. The said Original Suit was filed on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla in O.S.No.23 of 2002 in respect of same schedule property and the said suit is transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla and renumbered as O.S.No.77 of 2006. During the course of trial, the 7th defendant in O.S.No.77 of 2006 filed petition under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act to permit the defendants to file Photostat copy of the retirement of partnership deed dated 24.11.1997. In O.S.No.46 of 2004, the plaintiffs have filed similar petition to receive the Photostat copy of documents in the evidence of the plaintiffs.

2. The averments in the affidavit of K.Peraiah (7th defendant) in O.S.No.77 of 2006 and the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2004 are similar, which are that himself and others filed suit in O.S.No.46 of 2004 for Specific Performance of the contract in pursuance of agreement of 1st sale, dated 30.03.1996 executed by the plaintiff wherein the revision petitioners have filed written statement and suit is coming up for trial. He submits that the revision petitioners filed suit for Permanent Injunction in O.S.No.23 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla against them and others in respect of same suit schedule property disputing contract of sale wherein they filed written statement. It is the contention of the 7th defendant in O.S.No.77 of 2006 that they got suit in O.S.No.23 of 2002 transferred from Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla to Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla and renumbered as O.S.No.77 of 2006.

3. He further submits that he filed chief examination affidavit as DW.1 relying upon as many as six documents out of which the document dated 24.11.1997 is deed of retirement of partnership entered between himself and the 3rd plaintiff happened to be Xerox copy as the original was lost by him in bus travel, which document is necessary to repel the contention of other side that the suit agreement of sale, dated 30.03.1996 was brought into existence on account of the above said partnership dispute within the third plaintiff in O.S.No.77 of 2006. He prays to receive Xerox copy of document, dated 24.11.1997 as secondary evidence as the original is lost in bus travel.

4. In the said both similar petitions, the revision petitioners herein have filed counters with similar averments denying averments in the affidavit of Mr.K.Peraiah. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that affidavit of Mr.K.Peraiah is silent about the original document when he lost the said document in bus travel, where he lost, and what are the steps taken by him to find out the original document. They submits that in the absence of the said averments in the petition goes to show that Xerox copy of the document sought to be filed by the petitioners is a document brought into existence to establish his false defence in the suits, due to that Xerox copy of document cannot be marked as secondary evidence. They prays to dismiss the petition.

5. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides allowed the petitions filed by the respondent/R.1 Mr.K.Peraiah in the both suits passed following Order:-

“Admittedly as per the contention of the petitioner/defendant, he lost the original document and filed the Xerox copy of document dated 24.11.1997 to prove his case. There is no need for the petitioner to suppress t