This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 07.04.2005, made in I.A.No.173 of 2005 in O.S.No.182 of 2004, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge(P.C.R), Tiruchirappalli.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.182 of 2004, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge (P.C.R), Tiruchirappalli. The said suit was filed for partition and separate possession and also for mean profits. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A.No.173 of 2005, under Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C., for reception of a photocopy of the partition deed dated 04.12.1998, said to have been entered into between one Govindaraju Pillai and others. The fourth petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the said application, wherein he has stated that a partition was entered into during the lifetime of Govindaraju Pillai, which was reduced into writing and signed by all the parties. But the first defendant had retained the original with him. The fourth petitioner herein has further averred that the said document is a material documentary evidence to prove the facts and since she has got only a photocopy of the same, it should be admitted as secondary evidence on their part.

3. Resisting the said move, the first respondent has filed an objection, wherein he has stated that no such partition was entered into and there was no such document written and signed by the parties. Therefore, according to him, there is no question of retaining the original document by him. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the said I.A.

4. On considering the relevant materials available on record, the learned District Judge, has dismissed the said application on the following grounds:-

(i) The original partition deed said to have been entered into is not available for the purpose of comparing the same with the xerox copy which is sought to be marked in evidence and therefore, as per Section 63 of the Evidence Act, the xerox copy which is now produced cannot be called as a secondary evidence so as to be proved under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

(ii) There was no notice issued to the defendant to produce the document, as required under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act, and therefore, without satisfying the said provision, the xerox copy cannot be admitted in evidence.

(iii) The document is inadmissible in evidence for the reason that the same has neither been sufficiently stamped nor registered though it should be compulsorily registered.

(iv) Even for collateral purpose the said document cannot be accepted in evidence. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioners herein have filed this civil revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the said document is certainly admissible in evidence and the contrary order of the lower Court deserves to be set aside for the following reasons:-

(i) The document now in question is no doubt a xerox copy. But, there is no dispute raised by the defendant regarding the accuracy of the said document. Therefore, the production of the original document for the purpose of comparison is not at all required, to bring the document within the limb of Section 63(2) of the Evidence Act, so as to call the same as a secondary evidence. He would further contend that the document in question would not fall within the ambit of Section 63(3) of the Evidence Act, which alone requires comparison of copies made from copies.

(ii) Secondly, the learned counsel would submit that the requirements of Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act, have been satisfied. He would further contend that the conclusion of the lower Court that the document cannot be admitted in evidence in the absence of any notice to the defendant for production of document and consequential failure of the defendant to produce the sa