HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1503 of 2010 Date: July 6, 2010 Between: P.T. Dasharath, S/o. late Khem Chand, Aged about 54 years, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.4-2-78, Kotha Basthi, Jangaon Town and Mandal, Warangal District … Petitioner And Pasunoori Ram Reddy, S/o. late Mohan Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ: agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-7-132, Nehru Park Road, Jangaon Town and Revenue Mandal, Warangal District, and two others … Respondents Order: Defendant No.1 in the suit in O.S.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved of the order dated 11-03- 2010 passed in I.A.No.450 of 2009. By the aforesaid order, petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 65 and 66 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to permit him to lead secondary evidence, by producing Xerox copy of agreement dated 12-03-2003, is rejected. The first respondent herein filed the aforementioned suit for cancellation of documents. In the said suit, it was the plea of the petitioner herein that late Sri P. Mohan Reddy, father of the first respondent herein, executed an agreement of sale dated 20-03-1992 agreeing to sell land covered by Sy.No.81 of Jangaon town. It was also the case of the petitioner that there was an agreement dated 12-03-2003 in his favour, for which the first respondent is also the attestor. By pleading that the first respondent- plaintiff has taken back the agreement dated 12-03-2003, after executing Exs.A.1 and A.2, by giving Xerox copies of the same to him, he has issued notice to the first respondent for producing the original document. The first respondent has replied to the said notice denying the very existence of the said document. In that view of the matter, the petitioner filed application in I.A.No.450 of 2009 to permit him to produce Xerox copy of the agreement as secondary evidence; otherwise prejudice will be caused to him. The court below, by the impugned order, relying on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Badrunnisa Begum v. Mohamooda Begum[1], rejected the application stating that a copy of the original document, unless such copy is compared with the original document, cannot be accepted as secondary evidence. It is submitted by Sri S. Sudeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that secondary evidence, as defined under Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, means copies made from the original by mechanical processes; in that view of the matter, there is no valid reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this court was wrongly applied though the same is not applicable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines secondary evidence as evidence, which includes copies made from the original by mechanical processes. But, as per Section 63(2) of the Act, secondary evidence means copies, which are made from the original by mechanical processes, which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies. In this case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that late Sri P. Mohan Reddy had executed agreement dated 12-03-2003, but, it is the case of the first respondent-plaintiff that there was no such document executed at all by his father, late Sri P. Mohan Reddy. Even in response to the notice, which was issued by the petitioner to the first respondent for production of original document, the first respondent had replied stating that no such document was in existence. In that view of the matter, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether mere Xerox copy, which is sought to be produced by the petitioner, can be accepted as secondary evidence. Although Xerox copy is obtained from the original by mechanical process, it cannot be said that the same by itself insures accuracy of the original. In that view of the matter and in absence of any endorsement with regard to comparison of Xerox copy with the original document and also in view of denial of existence of any document by the first respondent, this court is of the opinion that Xerox copy cannot be accepted as secondary evidence. Though facts of the case in the judgment referred hereinabove are somewhat different, the said judgment cannot be applied to the instant case by a straightjacket formula. Further, in absence of any mechanism to insure accuracy of the Xerox copy, which is obtained from the original document by mechanical process, and also in absence of any endorsement with regard to comparison of the same with the original document, the said Xerox copy cannot be permitted to be led as secondary evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the court below, which warrants interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 6, 2010 MRR [1] 2001(3) ALT 243