HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 1792 of 2009 Date: 04-03-2011 Between: Smt. Amrutha Rao ……. Petitioners And Sri T. Vittal Rao and others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 1792 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides and at their request, the main Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed this Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 13-02-2009 in I.A.No.549 of 2008 in O.S.No.1665 of 2002 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which is purported to have been filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) where they want to mark a photocopy of the sale deed, dated 28-01-1954, as secondary evidence. The Court below, having found that such document cannot be considered as secondary evidence, dismissed the application. Hence, the Revision Petition. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the present application is only for the purpose of seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, which necessarily precedes the establishment of the basic ingredients as required under Section 65 of the Act. The petitioner has to make out as to how and wherefrom the photocopy is obtained by adducing appropriate evidence. It is only thereafter the copy can be allowed to be marked. By allowing the application straightaway, it does not satisfy the requirements under Section 65 of the Act. No doubt the certified copy of the very same sale deed appears to have been marked on behalf of the respondent as Ex.B-1. However, having regard to the signature of the father of the petitioner on the reverse side of the document as a witness, necessarily it has to be proved only by photocopy of the original document as the respondents stated, in response to the notice given by the petitioner, that the original sale deed is lost. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 13-02-2009 in I.A.No.549 of 2008 is set aside subject to the condition of the petitioner establishing the primary requirement as to how the photocopy is obtained from the original document, by adducing appropriate evidence. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 04-03-2011 YCR