HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No :5841 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 16.11.2009 in I.A. No.427 of 2009 in O.S. No. 84 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No. 84 of 2006 against the respondent herein for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. In that suit, the respondent- defendant filed I.A. No.427 of 2009 before the Court below under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and under Section 151 of C.P.C. to receive Xerox copy of the calculation memo signed by the petitioner along with the written statement. The Court below by the order impugned in this revision, allowed the said petition and permitted the respondent to lead secondary evidence. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that secondary evidence can only be the true version of the original and in the absence of a original document, it is not possible to ascertain the veracity of the xerox copy. He submits that the Trial Court had not appreciated the matter in proper perspective and hence the impugned order needs to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- defendant, while drawing my attention to the judgment of this Court in Amangenti Prameela and another vs P. Venkat Reddy([1]) , would contend that since the respondent has complied with the conditions incorporated under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, the trial Court has rightly allowed the I.A. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. Section 63 of the Evidence Act reads thus: 63. Secondary evidence. Secondary evidence means and includes-- (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; (2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (3) copies made from or compared with the original; (4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Illustrations (a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. (b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original. (c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original. (d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine- copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original. It is also necessary to extract the relevant portion of the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in Amangenti Prameela’s case cited supra, which reads thus: Section 63(2) of the Act recognizes copies made from original by mechanical process, which ensures the accuracy of the copy as one of the categories of secondary evidence. The Trial Court did not express any doubt as to the authenticity of the xerox copy of the document placed by the petitioners, since it was the reproduction through a mechanical process. Further, the petitioners have already called upon D.W.I to produce the original and there was no response to it. Thereby a circumstance, provided for under Section 65(a) of the Act emerges, enabling the Court to receive the secondary evidence. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent filed Xerox copy of calculation memo along with the written statement, which contained the signature of the petitioner. It is also seen from the record that the respondent gave a notice on 25.6.2008 to the petitioner calling upon him to produce the original calculation memo, however, the petitioner did not produce the same and on the other hand, made an endorsement on the said notice memo stating that he did not give the alleged calculation memo. When the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by the respondent, the respondent filed the present I.A seeking to receive Xerox copy of the calculation memo as secondary evidence. It is also seen from the record that the respondent has complied with the conditions incorporated in Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act before filing the said I.A. The trial Court on an elaborate consideration of the matter, has rightly allowed the I.A. and permitted the respondent to lead secondary evidence to have a proper adjudication of the matter. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 4th February, 2011 pnb [1] 2004(3) ALD 66