ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 27.06.2023, passed in I.A.No.2216 of 2022 in O.S.No.813 of 2011 by the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. O.S.No.813 of 2011 is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for recovery of money against petitioners and respondent No.2. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.2216 of 2022 was filed by petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to exhibit true photocopy of the blank pronotes and cheques already filed as secondary evidence on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application on 27.06.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitioners herein filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in not considering the established principles of law and passed the impugned order contrary to the principles enshrined under Section 63 r/w 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is the case of the petitioners that the blank pronote and blank cheque under Exs.A5 to A8 are tampered by the respondent No.1/plaintiff as the original was destroyed and therefore, secondary evidence in the form of a mechanical copy was being produced. It is further stated that plaintiff in fact inserted the name of the defendant No.3 without the knowledge of the petitioners and the same being the disputed question of fact ought to be decided only at the final disposal of the suit. The existence of burden of proof or absence thereof has no relevance at the stage of admission of evidence. It is an undisputed fact that there was a compromise award dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Petitioners requested the respondent No.1 to hand over the blank promissory notes and cheques obtained by respondent No.1 for the due performance of development agreement. If the photocopies were admitted through the secondary evidence, there will be no prejudice caused to respondent No.1/plaintiff. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Defendant No.1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No.2 is the Managing Director of defendant No.1 Company. Plaintiff and others are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.36.31 guntas in Sy.Nos.440, 441 and 454 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Defendant No.2 representing defendant No.1 Company requested the plaintiff and others to sell an extent of Ac.10.20 guntas and to give remaining extent of Ac.26.11 guntas for development. Accordingly, they entered into agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A and a memo of understating dated 02.07.2007 with defendant No.1 Company and further entered into a development agreement and memorandum of understanding dated 12.07.2007. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 paid Rs.5,56,23,000/- to the plaintiff and others. Defendant No.2 in the capacity as Managing Director of the defendant No.1 Company have executed two demand promissory notes for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- on 01.02.2008 in favor of defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 issued two post-dated cheques for Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-. No development was taken by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Matter was referred to Arbitration. A compromise award dated 18.02.2010 was passed by the tribunal.

6. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.20,97,000/- with interest from defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.2216 of 2022 was filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking permission to exhibit true photocopy of the blank pronotes and cheques. It is stated that Exs.A5 to A8 were tampered documents and petitioners came to know about the same through the legal notice dated 19.10.2011 under Ex.A15 and they denied their liability for payment of suit amount to the plaintiff by the reply noti