V.V. GOVINDARAJULU Vs. SAKALABHAKTULA VAIKUNTA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, in I.A. No. 100 of 2009 in O.S. No. 17 of 1990.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale based on a receipt dated 13.12.1979. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to sell a piece of land, took a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as advance and executed the receipt dated 13.12.1979. Since the original of the receipt dated 13.12.1979 was misplaced, it was not filed along with the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the above Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C seeking permission to file the photocopy of the receipt dated 13.12.1979 and to mark it as an exhibit. The defendant opposed the application raising several contentions, particularly, inadmissibility of the photocopy of the receipt. The Court below, by order dated 13.06.2011, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant filed this revision.

(3.) Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in the Court below, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Yashoda v/s. K. Shobha Rani : (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 730 to support his contention that the photocopy of the document is inadmissible in evidence, especially, when the original is not filed along with the plaint. He points out that in the affidavit filed in chief examination, at one place, the plaintiff stated that original receipt dated 13.12.1979 was filed along with the plaint and at another place, he stated that it was misplaced. He further submits that there was inordinate delay in filing the I.A, since the chief examination affidavit was dated 19.02.2008 and the I.A was filed on 20.04.2009. He further submits that great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner on account of the I.A being allowed and that the impugned order is virtually a non -speaking order since the Court below failed to set out the reasons for allowing the document to be taken on record.