RAMAKRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.11.2013 passed in I.A.No.740/2013 in O.S.No.1/2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Warangal.

(2.) I have heard Sri Ch.Purnachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the documents sought to be marked are letters addressed to the respondent company, the originals of which are with the respondents and the photocopies are maintained by the 1st petitioner as office copies. It is submitted by the petitioners that the respondent also referred and answered these letters in other communications and they are material documents and relevant to prove their case in the suit. Admittedly, the petitioners served a notice in Form - 12 on the respondent to produce the original documents for which the respondent replied that the documents shown at Sl.Nos.2 to 8 were not in its possession and Sl.No.1 document was already marked as Ex.A12. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that they had already stated in the written statement about the possession of these documents with the respondent and the original copies of the documents were not traced out in their office and they were lost. Prior to filing of the suit, the petitioners issued notice to the respondent to produce the original letters, but the respondent according to the petitioner, intentionally avoided to produce them. It is further submitted by the petitioners that Ex.A13 and Ex.A21 have already been referred to at Sl.No.1 and Sl.No.4 letters, considering their nature, they may be permitted to mark the photocopies of documents as secondary evidence in the course of trial.