TRILOKCHAND JAIN Vs. GURRAPU RAJAMOULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent filed O.S. No.151 of 1996 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad against the petitioner (Defendant No.1) and the second respondent (Defendant No.2) for the relief of setting aside (obviously cancellation) the decree in O.S. No.37 of 1982 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal or in the alternative to pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000.00 with 25% interest. He has also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from executing a registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein in respect of the said 'A' schedule property and certain other ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The first respondent filed IA No. 140 of 2000 under Section-65 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to receive the xerox copy of an agreement of sale, dated 30.11.1979 as secondary evidence. The petitioner opposed the same. Through its order, dated 26.6.2000, the Trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence this revision.

(3.) Sri B.V.S. Sivarama Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent on an earlier occasion filed LA. Nos.10 and 11 of 2000 to adduce the very agreement as secondary evidence and the applications were rejected by the Trial Court through order, dated 1.2.2000. According to him, the order in the said I.As. operates as res judicata against the present application. He also contends that the xerox copy of an agreement of sale cannot be received in evidence. Learned Counsel further contends that even otherwise the first respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section-65 of the Act, to enable the Trial Court to receive the xerox copy of agreement of sale as secondary evidence, and that the order of the Trial Court cannot be sustained.