MANEPALLI VENKATA SREERAMA MURTHY Vs. GARLAPATI LAKSHMANA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed OS No. 107 of 2008 in the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, against the petitioners for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 13.1.2007, and for a mandatory injunction for demolition of the structures, existing on the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed a written-statement, denying the plaint allegations and opposing the suit. The trial Court framed the issues and the trial of the suit commenced.

(2.) The respondent sought to file the photostat copy of the agreement of sale, dated 13.1.2007. It was pleaded that the original document was handed over to an Advocate, by name, D.P. Ramakrishna, for preparation of notice, and for drafting the pleadings, and that in spite of repeated requests, the said advocate did not return the original. The petitioners raised an objection for taking the xerox copy of the document, on record. According to them, though there is no dispute as to the execution of the agreement of sale, and making of certain endorsements, there is a serious dispute as regards the fourth endorsement. Both the parties placed reliance upon certain precedents. The trial Court overruled the objection raised by the petitioners, through its order dated 18.11.2009, and accordingly paved the way for marking of the photostat copies of the agreement of sale, and the endorsements made thereon. The order dated 18.11.2009 is challenged in this revision.

(3.) Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court did not ensure compliance with the requirements under law, before the so-called secondary evidence was taken on record. He contends that Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), enables a party to adduce secondary evidence, only when a party, who, in the natural course of events, is supposed to have the custody of the document in original, refuses to furnish the same, in spite of demand, and that an advocate engaged by a party cannot be said to be a person, to have natural custody of the document, in relation to the suit transaction. He further submits that except stating that he issued the notice to the said advocate, the respondent did not take any steps to summon him. Learned Counsel further contends that when there is a serious dispute as to the genuinity of the fourth endorsement, on the document, it becomes just impossible for the Court, to verify the plea, by examining a photostat copy.