THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1215 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the docket order dated 22.1.2009 in O.S.No.256 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, whereunder and whereby the relief sought for by the petitioner herein to receive the document (xerox copy of compromise agreement) dated 2.9.1998 as secondary evidence, was rejected. 2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for perpetual injunction in the year 1998. After conclusion of the trial, PW.1, who is the plaintiff, has filed his further chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A.5-No.3 Adangal. When PW.1 wanted to mark a xerox copy of the document styled as agreement of compromise dated 2.9.1998, original of which is said to have been with the defendants, the counsel for the defendants raised objection for marking the same stating that no such compromise agreement was executed at any time between the plaintiff and the defendants and that the defendants did not have any such original document with them. The trial court after hearing the rival contentions declined to receive the said document as secondary evidence holding that there is no whisper either in the chief examination affidavit of PW.1 or in the other evidence produced by him about execution of such document and that the defendants denied the very execution of the said document. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is seen that the very execution of document itself has been denied by the defendants. Apart from that, the suit is of the year 1998 and there is no whisper about the existence of such document either in the chief examination affidavit of PW.1 or in any other evidence. For the first time, in the year 2009, the alleged document is brought into existence. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the decision reported in Smt.J.Yashoda V. Smt. K.Shobha Rani,[1] wherein it was held as under: “Evidence Act (1 of 1872). Ss.63, 65(a)-Secondary Evidence-Admissibility- Documents in question were admittedly photo copies. There was no possibility of said documents being compared with original as same were with another person- Conditions in S.65(a) had not been satisfied. Documents cannot be therefore, accepted as secondary evidence.” 5. In the circumstances and in view of the decision of the Apex Court, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.01.2009 so as to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 31-07-2009 Stp [1] AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1721