R BUCHI REDDY Vs. R PRATAP REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the plaintiff in the suit in OS No.225 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the order, dated 20/11/2009, passed in IA No.801 of 2009.

(2.) By the aforesaid impugned order, the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 65(a) and (c) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, is dismissed by the Court below.

(3.) In this revision petition, it is contended by Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner that as much as the original document was retained by the respondents at the time of its execution, and as it is in their custody, unless the petitioner is allowed to lead secondary evidence by filing xerox copy of the same, he will be put to irreparable loss. It is further submitted that as much as the respondents themselves have stated that the document was destroyed in fire accident, there cannot be any objection for filing its xerox copy. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Bankatlal Mandhani and Sri J. Venkateswar Reddy, Advocates appearing for respondents, that the document, which is sought to be projected as secondary evidence, is an unregistered one. It is submitted that even according to the contents of the said document, it is a partition deed, which is compulsorily registerable document, but, as the same lis not registered as contemplated under the provisions of the Registration Act, a copy of it cannot be permitted to be exhibited as secondary evidence. It is further submitted that in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in CRP No.2107 of 2004, same plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted.