IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 3915 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: Vangapati Sreevalli, W/o. Venkataiah, R/o. D.No. 15/794, BP Agraharam, Srikalahasthi Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND Bayya Santhakumari, W/o. Hanumantha Rao, R/o. D.No. 5/35, Brahmana Street, Kothapeta, Chandragiri Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VL.N.G.KMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{TSSB} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3915 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal of I.A.500/2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti filed by the petitioner herein to reject the Xerox copy of Ex.A1 for marking on behalf of the defendant. The original of Ex.A1 was marked on behalf of the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner. Xerox copy of Ex.A1 was marked as Ex.B7 through DW 1. When the petitioner earlier filed revision questioning the marking of Xerox copy of Ex.A1 through DW 1, this Court gave a finding that the Xerox copy of the document may be marked subject to proof. It is stated that as DW 1 failed to appear before the Court below pursuant to recall application filed by the plaintiff, her evidence was eschewed. It is stated that DW 1 was in Como and was not in a position to come to the Court, and hence her husband can be examined on her behalf as husband is entitled to depose on behalf of the wife. The husband of DW 1 wanted to mark the Xerox copy of EX.A1, which was already marked as Ex.B7 through DW 1. Objecting the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the said I.A., which was dismissed by the Court below, against which this Civil Revision Petition is filed. I am of the opinion that when this Court already held that the said document can be marked subject to objection and proof, marking of the same document by the husband of DW 1 cannot be objected and the same can be marked subject to objection and proof. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in dismissing the application of the petitioner herein. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the said order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 21.08.2009 Dsr