THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 3630 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 05.07.2010, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 2387 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1766 of 2007, filed by the respondent praying to receive the rental agreement as secondary evidence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had handed over the rental agreement to the defendant, she could not produce the same, and in the absence of existence of original rental agreement, the Court below committed an error in allowing the application filed by the respondent praying to permit him to file xerox copy of the rental agreement, as secondary evidence, particularly when the same contains corrections. This submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The respondent, admittedly, issued notice calling upon the petitioner to produce the original rental agreement, and as she failed to produce the same, the respondent filed the present application. Though the petitioner contended that the Court below committed an error in holding that the petitioner did not deny the existence of rental agreement, the fact remains, the petitioner in the counter except stating that the original is not with her, nowhere stated that there was no rental agreement at all. Though the petitioner contends that since there are corrections in the rental agreement, in that, the stamp paper was purchased on 07.066.1996 in the name of petitioner and agreement is dated 01.04.2005 and that in the year 2006 ‘6’ is added, the xerox copy of the rental agreement, cannot be permitted to be filed as secondary evidence, the fact remains, the Court below had permitted the same to be filed as secondary evidence, subject to proof of the documents. In the above view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under revision, passed by the Court below allowing the application filed by the petitioner praying to permit him to produce the xerox copy of the rental agreement as secondary evidence, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P. and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th September, 2010 KSR