L S SHANKARAIAH Vs. LEAFIN INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review application is filed seeking the review of the order of this Court passed in Civil Revision Petition No.3241 of 1997, dated 11.9.1998.

(2.) The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of amount against the petitioner. During the course of trial of the suit, the respondent filed LA. No. 1372 of 1996 praying the Court below to permit him to lead secondary evidence with reference to a particular document in O.S. No. 2937 of 1994 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court; Hyderabad. The said I.A. was allowed by an order dated 8.8.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 3241 of 1997 before this Court. This said Civil Revision was dismissed by an order dated 11.9.1998 by my learned Brother Mr. Justice R. Bayapu Reddy (as he then was). While dismissing the said revision petition, he observed as follows : "...The revision petitioner, who is the defendant, appears to be disputing the truth and genuineness of the original voucher itself. It will always be open for him to raise such contention during the trial of the suit with regard to the truth and genuineness of the original voucher as well as its Xerox copy and the lower Court will decide such dispute on the basis of the evidence adduced before him. But it cannot be said that the Xerox copy itself is inadmissible in evidence as is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner."

(3.) On review petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order under review is contrary to the decision of this Court in Mamburu Bulli Veera Bhadra Prasad v. Vegi Vfenkata Satyanarayana, and Smt. K. Neelamma v. B. Suryanarayana, No doubt the above referred judgments had declared that the parties seeking to lead secondary evidence must state categorically that the original document is either lost or destroyed or is not within the control of the parties seeking to produce the document as evidence. Further the parties will have to plead and establish that the secondary evidence sought to be produced is a true copy of the original document as also such other existing conditions and the contents of the original document. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, it can be observed that no such averment is there. On the other hand, the petitioner herein denied the existing of the original document. In the circumstances, while disposing of the C.R.P., my learned Brother Mr. Justice R. Bayapu Reddy has rightly observed, which is extracted above. 1 see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.