THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION 4888 of 2008. ORDER This revision is at the instance of the defendants aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi allowing the I.A.No. 597 of 2008 filed by the plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . Under the aforesaid application, the plaintiffs sought permission of the trial court to produce Xerox copies of certain documents as secondary evidence. The specific case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that they had given notice to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi to produce the original documents apart from summoning the Register of Grants with respect to documents on which they were relying and that as the said officials did not produce the documents, they are forced to approach the court with the present application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, seeking permission to mark the Xerox copies of the originals. The petitioners/defendants opposed the said petition on various grounds including the ground that Section 65 of the Evidence Act has not been complied with and in any case, the Xerox copies cannot be marked. By the impugned order, the trial court on prima facie satisfaction that the plaintiff have complied with the Section 65 of the Evidence Act permitted marking of the said documents for the purpose of identification. While allowing the application, the trial court held that even if the plaintiffs are given permission to adduce secondary evidence, the defendants would have a right to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witness and dispute the genuineness and authenticity of the Xerox copies of the documents. In this revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the Xerox copies on the face of them cannot be marked in evidence. He also relied upon the decisions of this Court in Trilokchand Jain vs. Gurrapu Rajamouli [1] and in Manda Laxmi Rajam vs. Kanaparthi Laxmi Bai [2] for the proposition that satisfaction of conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act must be established by the party before he tenders Xerox copies of primary evidence for the purpose of receiving them in evidence. In both the decisions cited supra, this Court has considered the ingredients of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and held that only after complying with the conditions of the Section 65 of the Evidence, the party can be allowed to lead secondary evidence. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law. The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon the decisions in M.Aruna vs. Trilok Kumar Sanghi [3] L.S. Sadapopan vs. K.S. Sabarinathan [4] and and also on an unreported Judgement of this Court in C.R.P.No. 2008 of 2007 dt. 18.7.2007. The two decisions 3rd and 4th supra, relied on by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also relate to consideration of permissibility of Xerox copies being tendered in evidence by complying with Section 65 of the Act. In the decisions 3rd and 4th supra the necessary ingredients of Section 65 of the Act were specified. In the unreported Judgement, it was held that even if secondary evidence is permitted to be produced, the party producing the secondary evidence has to prove the documents in accordance with the requirements under the Evidence Act and the question whether secondary evidence attracts stamp duty and whether it is made by mechanical process and compared with original are the questions which are to be gone into by the trial court. In the light of rival contentions and in view of the prima facie satisfaction of compliance of section 65 of the Act as recorded by the trial court in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, I am of the view that the apprehension of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants is not justified. Even if the said Xerox copies are allowed to be marked subject to due compliance with Section 65 of the Act, the proof, relevancy and genuineness of the said documents has to be established by the respondents/plaintiffs. All the said questions are therefore left open to be agitated by the petitioners before the trial court on the basis of the evidence which the respondents/plaintiffs would lead so far as the documents in question is concerned. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference in this revision. Further, marking of documents in question shall be subject to respondents/plaintiffs establishing proof, relevancy and genuineness apart from satisfying the court as to the fulfilment of all ingredients of Section 65 of the Act. The petitioners/defendants shall also be given adequate opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter the trial court shall consider the aspect also along with the suit. Subject to the above, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 30.07.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION 4888 of 2008. ORDER Dt. 30.07.2010 [1] 2004 (4) ALT 605. [2] 2008 (5) ALT 222. [3] 2009 INDLAW AP 38. [4] 2001 INDLAW MAD 739.