THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1286 OF 2010 DATED: 01-04-2010 Between: Vikram Chandra Sanyasi Raju. ..... PETITIONER And Gumpa Prakash Rao & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 12-03-2010 in I.A.No. of 2010 in O.S.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, wherein the said application was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel on either side. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit against the respondents-defendants. The matter was coming up for trial, and the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. According to him, his father-L.N.Sanyasi Raju executed a document, dated 26- 08-1997, as ‘Sthirasthi Saswatha hakku anubhava patramu’ in respect of the plaint schedule property. Petitioner pleads that the original of the said document was in the custody of late R.J.Sanyasi Raju, who is the paternal uncle of the petitioner, and subsequently the said document was misplaced and could not be traced. Petitioner previously filed I.A.No.93 of 2009 under Order 7 Rule 14 (1) r/w Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the attested xerox copy of the said document. In the affidavit, filed in support of the said application, petitioner stated that the said document was an agreement and the original agreement was misplaced and so he was filing the attested xerox copy. The defendants opposed the said application and contended that the said document, which was only a xerox copy, cannot be received in evidence as the original document was not shown to have been lost. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge by order, dated 22-10-2009, dismissed the said application holding that the document, dated 26-08-1997, cannot be received in evidence as it was only a true copy and the same cannot be impounded for collection of stamp duty and penalty. In the said order, it was further held that the document sought to be marked is an agreement. The said order has become final and the same was not admittedly challenged. 5. Now, the petitioner has come forward with the present application taking a different stand altogether to the effect that the disputed document, dated 26-08-1997, is a Will executed by the father of the petitioner and the original having been lost, attested true copy may be received by way of secondary evidence. A perusal of the document would clearly show that it cannot be styled as a ‘Will’ as it seems to convey interest in the immovable property in present and immediately on its execution but not after the demise of the executant. That apart, the order, dated 22-10-2009, in I.A.No.93 of 2009 holding that the said document is an agreement and is liable for stamp duty and penalty having become final and binding, it is not open to the petitioner to put forward a contrary plea to the effect that it was not an agreement but a Will. In view of the earlier order, dated 22- 10-2009, in I.A.No.93 of 2009 barring admission of the document in evidence, filing the present application once again seeking the self-same relief by describing the same document with a different nomenclature, is not maintainable. The impugned order, rejecting the application, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st April, 2010. Tsy