HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON NoS.3671 AND 3672 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are similar. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. Petitioner filed two suits being O.S. Nos.228 and 229 of 2005 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, for recovery of Rs.69,360/- and Rs.96,840/- respectively. It was pleaded that the petitioner made purchase of black boards and Almarahs for being used in the institutions established for the benefit of Tribals and a sum of Rs.99,000/- for black boards and Rs.81,000/- for Alamarahs was paid. According to them, the actual value of the material is hardly Rs.60,000/- and steps were initiated for recovery of the balance. 3. The 1st defendant alone was contesting the suit. The Trial of the suit commenced and the evidence of PW-1 is in progress. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A Nos.466 and 467 of 2009 in the suits under Rule - 14(3) of Order – VII CPC with a prayer to permit him to file certain documents, which are in the form of notices, bills etc. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, it was pleaded that due to inadvertence, the documents were not filed along with the suits. 4. The applications were opposed by the contesting defendant i.e. the 1st respondent herein. It was urged that no mention was made to the documents either in the plaint or in the chief-examination and that the originals were not filed. The trial Court dismissed the applications through separate orders dated 15-06-2010. Hence, these two revisions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 6. The effort of the petitioner was to bring on record certain documents pertaining to the transaction of purchase of black boards and the Almarahs. It may be true that those documents were not filed along with the suits. However, it cannot be said that the documents are totally irrelevant or that there was any delay, leading to hardship or detriment to the contesting respondents. Further, it is not uncommon that the proceedings instituted by the Government are not that perfect, as are pursued by the private authorities. 7. One valid objection raised by the contesting respondent is that copies and not originals were filed. If the petitioner feels that the documents are to be filed, he should present the originals. The secondary evidence thereof, cannot be filed unless specifically permitted by the Court on proving the necessary ingredients. 8. Hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders under revision are set aside. It is directed that in case the petitioner files the originals of the documents, the trial Court shall take the same on record. On the other hand, if copies are filed, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an application under the relevant provisions of law for receiving the secondary evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 20, 2011. KTL/VJL