THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.3037 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.295 of 2007 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit appears to have commenced. The petitioner filed I.A.No.118 of 2010, under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to receive the secondary evidence of patta, dated 08.07.1992, in respect of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the patta is in the custody of the respondent. The application was opposed by the respondent, stating that the petitioner failed to prove the ingredients of Section 65 of the Act. The trial Court dismissed the application, through order, dated 03.06.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. One of the parties to the suit can adduce secondary evidence of a document, if only the original thereof is in the custody of the other party, or a third person and when the party intending to adduce secondary evidence has issued notice for production of the original, they did not respond. In the instant case, the petitioner did not even mention that she has issued notice to the respondent with a request to produce the original. It is only when such a notice is issued and the respondent did not accede to the request that the question of filing secondary evidence, would arise. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to follow the prescribed procedure and take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:23.07.2010 GJ