O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 24.11.2021 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2015.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs / respondents 1 to 45 filed a petition before the trial Court to mark the xerox copies of the documents shown in Serial Nos.14 and 15 of the plaint as a secondary evidence and the said petition was allowed. Aggrieved over that, the petitioners / defendants 1 and 2 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the registered Sale Deeds dated 05.10.2012 were not released by the Registrar even after the registration due to Deficit Stamp Duty. When the Document No.16 which is the copy of the registered Sale Deed and was intended to be marked that was also objected by stating that the original Sale Deed is very much available and without taking any steps to produce the original Sale Deed copy of it cannot be marked. In this regard, in an earlier Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD)No.2230 of 2018 this Court has passed a detailed order on 30.07.2019 and in which it is suggested to summon the Sub-Registrar, Kaveripattanam to produce the original Sale Deeds and that it can be compared with the copy (Document No.16). The order has been complied and the comparison of registered Sale Deeds with Document No.16 is also made. Hence, Document No.16 is not the matter in issue in the petition filed by the respondents in I.A.No.3 of 2021.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition was filed to mark the xerox copies of the documents listed in Serial Nos.14 and 15 as exhibits on the side of the defendants. The contention of the respondents is that after the preparation of the draft for the Sale Deed certain interpolations, additions and corrections were made in the original draft of the Sale Deed. In order to substantiate the above facts, the petition was filed seeking permission for the defendants to mark documents in Serial Nos.14 and 15. Since the draft of the original Sale Deeds were not available with the defendants, the xerox copies were requested to be marked as exhibits.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since there is no default on the part of the respondents to produce the originals and the respondents do not have control on the originals of the drafts for the Sale Deeds, they can only mark the xerox copies furnished to them at the time when the drafts were prepared.

6. There cannot be any quarrel on the fact that whenever a Sale Deed is registered, a draft will be prepared for the approval of the parties. When a draft is prepared a copy of the draft will be furnished to either party in order to verify and give their approval. The contention of the respondents is that during that course, they were only given with the xerox copy and the original drafts might be lying in the custody of the Notary Public or with the petitioners.

7. Admittedly, the originals of the drafts are not in the custody of the respondents. The petitioners also did not give any authentic information about the person with whom the originals of the draft of the Sale Deeds are available. If the originals are available with the Notary Public, it is always open to the parties to summon the concerned Notary Public for producing the originals of the draft of the sale deeds. The respondents are in possession of the xerox copies of the draft of the Sale Deeds and they do not have any control over the originals.

8. The learned trial Judge has rightly dealt the above issue and permitted the respondents to mark the copies of the drafts of the sale deeds listed in Serial Nos.14 and 15 to be produced as secondary evidence. However, the burden is upon the respondents to prove the veracity of the documents by summoning the Notary Public or by way of bringing any other relevant facts which would help to sub