THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2676 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.11.2009 passed in I.A. No. 2481 of 2009 in O.S. No. 2303 of 2006 by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners herein, defendants in the suit, under Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (for short ‘the Act’), praying the Court below to receive the Xerox copy of the registered General Power of Attorney No. 96/82 dated 01.03.1982, as secondary evidence, and mark the same as exhibit in B Series. The respondents herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 2303 of 2006 before the Court below, for permanent injunction, against the petitioners herein. Pending the suit, the petitioners-defendants filed the present I.A., under Section 61 of the Act, stating that plaintiff No.1, in his evidence as P.W.1, admitted that a registered General Power of Attorney bearing No. 96/82 dated 01.03.1982 was executed by their vendor in favour of one Gopichand, and having admitted the existence of the said document, P.W.1 deliberately did not produce the same before the Court. The defendants further stated that, under the guise of said GPA, the alleged agent Gopichand entered into agreement of sale with one Surendar, who changed the boundaries of the land as compared to boundaries in the GPA. It was their further case that the said GPA was registered at Vijayawada, but however, in a fire accident, the records in the office of the Registrar were destroyed and therefore the certified copy of the GPA is not available, but however, a copy of the said document which was served by the plaintiffs on them during proceedings in a review petition before this Court, is available with them. Thus, the defendants prayed to receive the said Xerox copy of the GPA dated 01.03.1982 on record as secondary evidence and mark the same on their behalf. Respondents resisted the claim of the petitioners. The Court below, having considered the respective contentions of the parties, held that according to the petitioners, P.W.1 admitted the existence of document, and thus in their opinion, the document is in possession of P.W.1, and if that is so, it is their duty to issue notice to P.W.1, as required under Section 66 (a) of the Act, calling upon him to produce the said document, but however, no such notice was issued by the petitioners, and accordingly dismissed the petition, by order dated 07.11.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred the present civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under revision. Admittedly, secondary evidence is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence and where original document is in existence, but not produced, secondary evidence by production of copies is not admissible. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioners-defendants that, P.W.1, who admitted the execution of GPA dated 01.03.1982 by their vendor in favour of one Gopi Chand, did not deliberately file the said document before the Court. Thus, according to the petitioners-defendants, the said document is in possession of the plaintiffs. That being so, the petitioners-defendants are under an obligation to issue notice to the respondents-plaintiffs, as provided under Section 66 of the Act, to produce the said document. But, no such notice was issued by the petitioners-defendants to the respondents-plaintiffs calling upon them to produce the document. Though the petitioners-defendants contend that even according to the respondents-plaintiffs themselves, the certified copy of the document was lost in fire accident that occurred in the Registrar’s Office at Vijayawada, and to substantiate the same, they also filed a certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Vijayawada, and as such, notice under Section 66 of the Act is not required to be issued, the fact remains, it not the case of the petitioners-defendants that the original document itself was lost, but it is their case that only the certified copy of the said document, which is lying with the Registrar, was destroyed in the fire accident. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 10th March, 2011 VA/IBL