ORDER :

1. This CRP is filed against the order dated 04-02-2015 in I.A.No.13 of 2015 in O.S.No.26 of 2009, wherein and whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 65 (c) of Indian Evidence Act (for short “the Act”) seeking permission for leading secondary evidence in respect of possessory agreement of sale dated 23-05-2005 is allowed.

2. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court came to erroneous conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 65 (c) of the Act and allowed the application for leading the secondary evidence in respect of possessory agreement of sale dated 23-05-2005. He also submits that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.11 of 2017 for grant of injunction and the 1st plaintiff in the present suit filed counter and there also original of document in question is not filed and said possessory agreement of sale has never seen the light of the day and it has not been produced before any authority and the respondents/plaintiffs have not laid any actual foundation that said document is lost and they have also not proved that the same is executed by the petitioner and the petitioner has denied the execution of the said document in the written statement. As such, the trial Court erroneously allowed the application. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in U.Sree v. U.Srinivas, (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114.

3. On the other hand, Sri M.Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the PW.3 is the scribe of the possessory agreement dated 23-05-2005 and PW.2 is the attestor of the document, who categorically stated that the document was scribed and executed in their presence and PW.6 is the person, who has attested the Xerox copy of the agreement after seeing the original, as such, the execution of the document is proved. Coupled with that a complaint was made to the police and certificate was obtained that it is not traceable, which goes to show that the conditions laid down under Section 65 (c) of the Act are complied and the trial Court has rightly allowed the application. He also submits that after the application is allowed, documents received and even prior to that document is marked. As such, no interference is called for. He relied on the judgments of Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 758, Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri, 2016 (1) ALD 19 (SC), Ramakrishna Constructions, Karimnagar District v. Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd, Warangal, 2015(1) ALD 427, E.Satyanarayana Reddy v. Ch.Muralidhar Reddy, 2010 (5) ALD 775 and the judgment of Smt.Sattamma v. Ch.Bhikshapati Goud alias Ch.Bhupal Goud, AIR 2010 Andhra Pradesh 166.

4. It is relevant to extract Section 65 of the Act for better appreciation, which reads as under:

Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.—Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:—

(a) ………..

(b) ………..

(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

5. In the present case, I.A.No.13 of 2015 is filed contending that the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of land admeasuring Ac.7- 15 guntas covered by Sy.No.51/A of Lokavaram Village, which is the plaint schedule property. The first defendant announced that she would sell the plaint schedule property on 19-01-2005, deceased first plaintiff approached the first defendant, agreed to purchase the schedule property and price was fixed at Rs.1,30,000/-. The first defendant received an amount of Rs.25,000/- from deceased first plaintiff and executed a nonpossessory agreement of sale on the same day i.e. 19-01-2005 in favour of deceased