N S PRAKASH RAO Vs. BALA KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.669 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. He filed the suit for delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property i.e., 700 Sq.yards of land forming part of Plot No.C16, IDA, Uppal, together with compound wall and gates as well as asbestos covered sheds. The suit is also for mesne profits.

(2.) The petitioner purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 18.1.2006 from Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) for the purpose of setting up an industry. As he could not utilize the entire extent of land, he allegedly entered into licence-cum-hire agreement dated 01.1.1997 with the respondents/defendants who agreed to erect structures on the demised plot, after obtaining necessary permission and sanction from appropriate authorities. As per the said agreement, the period of license/lease was ten years with an option to renew the same. In 1999, having come to know that the respondents are raising structures without necessary permission from appropriate authorities, petitioner got issued notice calling upon the respondents to vacate the suit schedule premises, in vain. Therefore, he filed the suit. The suit is opposed by the respondents inter alia on the ground that they entered into lease-cum-rent agreement and that it is not a licence. They also denied all the allegations made by the petitioner.

(3.) The suit is coming up for trial. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A. No.127 of 2007 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, (the Act, for brevity), praying the trial Court to pass order to mark copy of the agreement dated 01.1.1997 as secondary evidence. In justification of the said application, petitioner alleged that the original licence-cum-hire agreement is in possession of the respondents and that in spite of notice by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), respondents failed to produce the original document. He also alleged that copy/carbon copy of the document, which remained with the petitioner, may be received as secondary evidence. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court by an order dated 02.3.2007 declined to accept the document as secondary evidence while observing that the document is a lease deed, that the document suffers from stamp duty and penalty and that the same cannot be received as secondary evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.