THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3764 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.83 of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni against the petitioner and other respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In her written statement, the petitioner has taken the plea of prior partition. The trial of the suit commenced and recording of evidence on behalf of respondent No.1 is concluded. In the course of evidence of the petitioner herein, she wanted to rely upon a document, dated 06.12.1988, witnessing the partition. Stating that the original document was with the father of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed a xerox copy of the same. Respondent No.1 raised two objections as to the admissibility of the document. The first was that it was only a xerox copy and the second was that, it is a partition deed that needs registration, but was not registered nor it was properly stamped. Through its order, dated 14.07.2009, the trial Court upheld the objections raised by respondent No.1. Hence this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Two grounds weighed with the trial Court in passing the order under revision. In a way, the conclusion on the first aspect led to the conclusion on the second one. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed a xerox copy of the alleged deed of partition. Even assuming that the deed of partition can be taken into account for collateral purpose, even if registered, there was a stumbling block. The original document was not filed. It is only when the original unstamped document is filed that an occasion for getting it impounded would arise. The trial Court has therefore refused to take the document into account. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) stipulates the circumstances under which the secondary evidence can be permitted. If the petitioner intends to adduce secondary evidence in relation to the partition, he has to plead necessary ingredients by filing an independent application under Section 65 of the Act. It is only when the trial Court is satisfied as to the circumstances under which the secondary evidence came to be led, that permission could have been granted. In the event of the secondary evidence being permitted, an occasion would have arisen for the Court to consider the feasibility of impounding the document. Even now, the petitioner can make an application under Section 65 of the Act. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of upholding the order under revision, but leaving it open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 65 of the Act and to take further steps in the matter. Since the suit is of the year 2004, the petitioner shall hasten the steps if he intends to take them. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 25.01.2011. kdl