ORDER :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. These two revisions arise between the same parties out of the same suit and so they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioner is defendant in OS No. 106 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Narayanpet.

3. Respondent filed the suit against petitioner for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, rectification of registered sale deed dated 3.8.2004 by deleting the word/figures 'Sy. No. 335' and substituting the word/figures as 'Sy. No. 622' therein. His plea is that in the regd. sale deed executed in his favor by the petitioner, the 'Sy. No. 622' had to be mentioned and not 'Sy. No. 335'.

4. Written statement was filed by petitioner.

CRP No. 604 of 2019

5. IA No. 92 of 2018 was filed by respondent seeking to mark photocopy of an agreement of sale dated 23.6.2004 allegedly executed by petitioner contending that prior to the execution of the registered sale deed dated 3.8.2004 in his favour (wherein survey number was incorrectly mentioned), there was an agreement of sale also executed by petitioner on 23.6.2004 mentioning the correct 'Sy. No. 622' for the subject land; that the original of the said agreement of sale was with the petitioner; and so he may be permitted to file photocopy of the same. He also alleged that he issued a notice to the petitioner to produce the original of agreement of sale and so the photocopy of the said agreement of sale may be received as secondary evidence.

6. In the written statement in Para 3, petitioner had clearly denied that he had entered into any agreement of sale with the respondent. Petitioner also filed a counter-affidavit in the said LA. opposing the said application stating that he did not take back the original agreement of sale dated 23.6.2004. He also pointed out that the respondent did not plead in the plaint about the agreement of sale dated 23.6.2004 being taken back by petitioner and only in order to get wrongful gain he has falsely claimed that the original agreement of sale was taken back by the petitioner.

7. By order dated 10.4.2018, the Court below allowed the said application. It held that though petitioner had denied the said agreement of sale having been entered into prior to the execution of the registered sale deed on 3.8.2004 in favour of respondent, since the respondent mentioned about its existence, non-filing of the photocopy of the agreement of sale at the time of filing of the suit is not by itself a bar to the respondent to rely on the said document. It also recorded that even if respondent did not lay any foundation for reception of secondary evidence while preparing the plaint, since he had mentioned about the agreement of sale dated 23.6.2004, he is entitled to adduce secondary evidence of the same. It noted that respondent had issued notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872 on 2.4.2018 at the time of filing of said LA. and sufficient time was not given to the petitioner to answer the notice and yet, the respondent can be allowed to produce secondary evidence of the photocopy of the agreement of sale.

8. Assailing the same, the CRP No. 604 of 2019.

9. Counsel for the petitioner contended that when the existence and execution of the said agreement of sale was denied by the petitioner, and when the respondent did not lay any foundation for marking photocopy/secondary evidence of the said document, the Court below erred in permitting him to file it.

10. Counsel for the respondent refuted the above conditions and supported the order passed by the Court below. He contended that the said document was already admitted in evidence and at this stage, after oral evidence was also recorded regarding it, the order in the LA. cannot be set aside.

11. I have noted the contentions of the parties.

12. In J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730, the Supreme Court held that secondary evidence, as a general rule, is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence; in order to enable a party to produce