HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2673/2011 Dt.29-07-2011 Talasila Nagamani …..Petitioner V. M.Aruna ……Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2673/2011 Oral Order The petitioner claiming to be the claim petitioner filed EA No.266/2011 in EA lNo.140/2011 in EP No.59/2011 in OS No.347/2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada to condone the delay in filing commercial tax registration certificate and adde karanunama (rental deed). The said petition was partly allowed, by the executing court, by order dt. 30-6-2011, granting permission to receive xerox copy of the caveat petition filed by the decree holder before the Honourable High Court and refusing to receive the xerox copy of the rental deed and the Xerox copy of the commercial tax registration certificate. Against the order of the executing court refusing to receive Xerox copies of rental deed and commercial tax registration certificate, the present revision petition has been filed. The claim petitioner filed EA No.140/2011 claiming that she is the statutory tenant of the claim petition schedule property and she has been paying rent of Rs.1000/- per month as per the rental agreement executed by the decree holder in her favour and Form D-1 certificate of registration has been issued by the Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada in the name of Krishna Meghana Matching, J.D. Hospital Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. Since the said rental deed and Form D-1 Certificate of registration were not available with her at the time of filing claim petition, xerox copies of the same are being filed and same should be received. The trial court rightly rejected to receive the xerox copies of the said documents. The petitioner has not stated in her affidavit that they were obtained from the originals, which are in his possession. If the petitioner is not in possession of the same, it is always open for her to obtain certified copies of the same and file before the court. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 29-7-2011 kmr