THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO:5424 of 2010 DATED:21.12.2010 BETWEEN PRODDUTURI ASHWINI KUMAR …PETITIONER AND KACHAM KONDAIAH & OTHERS. …RESPONDENTS. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO:5424 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the 2nd defendant-petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2010 in O.S.No:21 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant and the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.21 of 2008. The Court below has passed the impugned order permitting the plaintiff to mark the zerox copies of agreements of sale dated 3.4.2008 said to have been executed by defendants-1 and 2, subject to the condition that the validity of the said agreements of sale and its relevancy and correctness would be decided at the time of arguments after both the parties adduce evidence in the trial. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the 2nd defendant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-2nd defendant that on the earlier occasion, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No:142 of 2009 seeking for issuance of summons to one Muninder who is said to be in possession of the alleged agreements of sale and the said application was allowed and consequently, the said Muninder appeared before the Court and stated that he did not have the custody of the alleged agreements of sale. It is further contended that in spite of the same, the plaintiff is permitted to mark the zerox copies of the alleged agreements of sale even on the objection raised by the revision petitioner that in the absence of production of the original documents, the zerox copies of the same cannot be marked. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in view of the conditional order impugned herein to the effect that the validity of the agreements of sale and its relevancy and correctness would be decided at the time of arguments after both sides adduce evidence in the trial, neither of the parties are deprived of their right to challenge its validity and relevancy by adducing evidence in the trial and therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed before this Court the certified copy of the order in O.S.No:21 of 2008, dated 1.5.2009, which reads as under: “Whether the suit is not maintainable for non production of the alleged original agreement of sale said to have been executed by defendants-1 to 3.” In view of the framing of the above issue and also in view of the conditional order impugned herein to the effect that the validity of the agreements of sale and its relevancy and correctness would be decided at the time of arguments after both the parties adduce evidence in the trial, I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner, in as much as he is always at liberty to rebut the contentions raised by the plaintiff by adducing evidence and the relevant material at the time of trial. In view of the same, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH DATE:21.12.2010 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO:5424 OF 2010 DATED:21.12.2010