E SATYANARAYANA REDDY Vs. MURALIDHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant had been served and none represents the respondent/defendant.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Revision petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved of the order made in I.A. No. 1442/2008 in O.S. No. 251/2004 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The said application was filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act (in short hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience) to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in respect of the agreement dated 21-1-1981 and affidavit dated 7-8-1989. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal after recording reasons came to the conclusion that such documents cannot be permitted by way of secondary evidence and ultimately the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred.

(3.) Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through Section 8 of Notaries Act 1952 and also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 63(2), 85(3) of the Act and Section 65 of the Act as well and further strongly relied on Banarsi Dass v. Maman Chand, 1992 AIR(P&H) 145 and Pandurangan v. Sarangapani and Anr., 1982 AIR(Mad) 372 and would contend that in the light of clear legal position, the order made being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside.