HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4751 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Kesava Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, and Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant. The respondent-defendant filed I.A.No.263 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2004 before the Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, Srikakulam, seeking leave to exhibit the photostat copy of a private account, which was filed along with the written statement, allegedly maintained by the firm’s accountant evidencing that Sri A.V.Narasimham had withdrawn Rs.19.00 lakhs, as Ex.B.1. The Court below relying on the judgments in N.S.Prakash Rao v. Bala Krishna[1], B.Poornima v. Thoomu Ramdasu[2], Laxman Ganpati Khot v. Anusuyabai[3] and Trilokchand Jain v. Gurrapu Rajamouli[4], held that the petitioner-plaintiff could have no real objection for the respondent-defendant marking the said photostat copy of the so-called private account, more particularly showing that Sri A.V.Narasimham had withdrawn Rs.19.00 lakhs from the plaintiff’s firm. The Court below allowed the interlocutory application, granted leave to the respondent-defendant to exhibit the photostat copy of the private account maintained by the firm’s accountant evidencing that Sri A.V.Narasimham had withdrawn Rs.19.00 lakhs, and to mark the said document as Ex.B.1. I n Trilokchand Jain4, this Court held that the person intending to adduce secondary evidence had to prove to the satisfaction of the Court, the existence, condition, or contents of the original; for this purpose mere assertion was not sufficient; independent evidence had to be adduced to show that the document in its original form existed, as to its contents; the availability of it with a particular individual; and, then the secondary evidence of such a document could be received. In the case on hand, the respondent-defendant has not adduced evidence in his defence, and the Suit is coming up for the evidence of the respondent-defendant herein. As held in Trilokchand Jain4, the respondent-defendant has to adduce evidence to prove to the satisfaction of the Court below that the document in its original form existed; as to its contents; and its availability with a particular individual, before the secondary evidence of such a document can be received. Since no such evidence has as yet been adduced by the respondent-defendant, the Court below erred in permitting him to mark the said photostat copy as Ex.B.1. The order under revision is, therefore, set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondent- defendant from filing a similar application, as filed in I.A.No.263 of 2009, after he adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court below that the document in its original form exists’ as to its contents, and its availability with the individual concerned. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:06-08-2010 usd [1] 2007(5) ALT 398 [2] 2006(4) ALT 236 [3] AIR 1976 BOMBAY 264 [4] 2004(3) ALD 276