THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2994 and 3001 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: In both these revision petitions, the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Since the two revision petitions arise out of the same suit, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. While CRP No.3001 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2007 passed in I.A.No.3405 of 2007 in O.S.No.167 of 2004, CRP No.2994 of 2008 was filed against the order dated 2.4.2008 passed in I.A.No.821 of 2008 in the suit. By the said orders, the Court below has dismissed both the petitions. I.A.No.821 of 2008 was filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act praying the Court to receive the attested copies of fifty entry passes of Azadpur Fruit market, attested copy of voters list and attested copy of marketing licence of the respondent firm as secondary evidence on the ground that I.A.No.3405 of 2007, which is the subject matter of CRP No.3001 of 2008, filed for calling the said documents from Azadpur Market, New Delhi was dismissed on the ground that I.A.No.3077 of 2007 filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) was already allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material placed before the Court. Admittedly, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3077 of 2007 in O.S.No.167 of 2004 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC praying the court to receive the entry passes and voters list mentioned in the list of documents. It was stated in the said petition that he filed the suit for recovery of money and at the time he could not obtain the entry passes of the marketing committee of Chowdhry Heera Singh Wholesale Vegetable and Fruit Market, Azadpur, Delhi but subsequently he obtained the entry passes, which show that on the said dates the loads of sweet lime were sent in a lorry and the said entry passes are necessary for deciding the issue. So also, he obtained a copy of the voters list of the said market, which shows that the proprietor of the respondent company is the voter. The Court below after considering the contentions of both the parties and the material adduced before it, found that the said documents are necessary for resolving the issue and accordingly allowed the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3405 of 2007 requesting the Court to direct the Secretary, Chowdary Hira Singh to produce the listed documents of the petition. The said petition was dismissed as infructuous in view of allowing IA No.3077 of 2007, which was filed seeking permission of the court to receive the documents. Thereafter, I.A.No.821 of 2008 was filed to receive the said documents as secondary evidence as he is not having the neither the originals nor the certified copies of the said documents. The said petition was dismissed by the Court below holding that the said documents are not admissible in evidence and, therefore, they cannot be received as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Hence the revision petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Court below has permitted the petitioner to file the documents in question vide the order in I.A.No.3077 of 2007, it cannot now turn around and say that the said documents cannot be received as secondary evidence vide the impugned orders. He also contends that if the said documents are not permitted to be adduced as secondary evidence, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and, therefore, said documents may be marked subject to proof and relevancy. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, earlier the Court below vide the orders in IA NO.3077 of 2007 after considering the contentions of both the parties and also perusing the material placed before it has already permitted the petitioner to file the documents in question. Therefore, subsequently, when the petitioner filed I.A.No.3405 of 2007 to summon the Secretary of the market to produce the said documents, the same was dismissed in view of allowing I.A.No.3077 of 2007. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Court below now in I.A.No.821 of 2008 rejecting the request of the petitioner to mark the said documents as secondary evidence is not proper. It is well settled that if any documents are relevant to decide the real issue in controversy and if the court feels that the interest of justice requires that documents to be received, the same can be allowed subject to proof and relevancy. For the foregoing reasons, the order in I.A.No.821 of 2008 dated 2.4.2008 is set aside and CRP No.2994 of 2008 is allowed. Consequently, CRP No.3001 of 2008 is dismissed as requiring no further orders. N.V.RAMANA,J DT. ..8..2009 msv