SYED HAJI PASHA Vs. SYED AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, filed this revision petition against the order in I.A.No.362 of 2009 in O.S.No.12 of 2007, dated 19-10-2009, whereby the request of the defendant for permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of a sale deed was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/- to the revision petitioner.

(2.) The defendant filed the petition under Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that the Tahsildar of Alladurg produced only an attested copy of the sale deed as the original was not traced in the Tahsil office and consequently, leading secondary evidence in respect of the sale deed is very essential.

(3.) The plaintiff contended herein that when the plaintiff is contending the document to be concocted and fabricated for the purpose of the suit and in the absence of any proof of submission of the original sale deed before the Tahsil office, the trial Court should not have permitted the secondary evidence. THEre was no proof of existence of the original sale deed at any point of time and it was held by the Apex Court that in the absence of proof of possession of the original document with any person, no foundation for leading secondary evidence can be said to have been made out. THE plaintiff contended that Section 65 of the Evidence Act has no application and when the Mandal Revenue Officer never stated that the original sale deed was filed before him or that it was misplaced and when it was not proved that the original document was compared with the copy, any secondary evidence cannot be received, more so, in view of the difficulties that may be caused by receiving such document in having such document compared by a Handwriting Expert for ascertainment of the genuineness of the signatures on the document. Hence, the plaintiff sought for reversal of the impugned order.