HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.55 OF 2010 DATE:22-01-2010 BETWEEN Karri Satyavathi (died) per L.Rs. & Others. …Petitioners AND Tirumani Satyananda Murthy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.55 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision by the defendants is directed against the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 9.11.2009 whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff in I.A.No.2849 of 2009 in O.S.No.1718 of 2003 to expunge/remove the document marked as Ex.B.4, dated 21.12.2000 from the suit record was allowed. The respondent herein instituted the above suit for cancellation of succession certificate obtained by the defendants- petitioners herein in O.P.No.7 of 2003, dated 23.6.2003 alleging that the same was obtained on the basis of forged will, dated 21.12.2000 and that they did not produce the original of the said will. In the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.No.379 of 2004 to direct the defendants-petitioners herein to produce the original will deeds, dated 23.5.2000 and 21.12.2000 executed by K.Hanumantha Rao into the Court and that the said I.A. was accordingly allowed. Pursuant to the same, the defendants- petitioners herein filed the certified copy of the will, dated 21.12.2000. But, they did not file the original will as directed in I.A.No.379 of 2004 and that when the same was sought to be marked, an objection was raised by the respondent-plaintiff, and that the said objection was recorded and the certified copy of the will was marked as exhibit subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Hence, the respondent-plaintiff filed the impugned I.A. for expunging/removing the said document from evidence. The lower Court by the impugned order rightly allowed the I.A. because in spite of the specific order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.379 of 2004, the petitioners failed to produce the original will and that they did not choose to resist the said petition stating that the original will deed, sought to be produced, is not in their custody. Further in the said I.A., the petitioners being respondents sought time for filing counter and therefore, they are within the knowledge of filing I.A.No.379 of 2004 and the orders passed therein and therefore, the contention that the said I.A. was ordered behind their back cannot be accepted. In view of the same and inasmuch as the petitioners failed to satisfy the conditions necessary for adducing the secondary evidence as contemplated under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, no infirmity can be discernable with the impugned order. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 22, 2010 Tsr.