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 a