IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 8 9 0 OF 2010 Between: S. Pavan Kumar Jain s/o Shanbitlal Jain, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.23-5-824/8, Near Venkat Rao School, Laldarwaja, Hyderabad & Anr. … Petitioner V/s. GVL Narsimha Rao, died per LRs Smt.KPS Vasundhara d/o GVL Narsimha Rao, W/o KV Ranga Rao, aged about 46 years, Occ. Housewife, r/o H.No.4-32-364, Phase-I Allwyn colony, Kukkatpalli, Hyderabad & Ors. …. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. P. PremRaj Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 8 9 0 OF 2010 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 23-10-2009 passed in I.A.No. 2525 of 2009 in OS.No.445 of 2006 by the learned II- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application filed under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed the above interlocutory application seeking to permit the petitioner to mark the Xerox copies of the legal notice dated 09-9-2006 got issued by the first petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs), postal receipts and postal acknowledgements as secondary evidence on the grounds as alleged in the affidavit of the second petitioner (second defendant) that their father expired on 09-2-2007 and at the time of death of their father he was not residing with them and that after expiry of their father they tried to trace out the said legal notice and acknowledgements but they could not succeed in their efforts, as such, the xerox copies of the said legal notice, postal receipts and acknowledgements can be received as secondary evidence. 3. On the other hand, the respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed their counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 resisted the interlocutory application and denied the issuance of the legal notice, dated 09-9-2006 by the first defendant and further contended that the first defendant never got issued any legal notice dated 09-9-2006 nor the same was received by them and as such, the allegations made in the affidavit of the second petitioner (defendant No.2) are denied and prayed to dismiss the application. 4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the learned Judge framed the following point for consideration: “whether the Xerox copy of legal notice dated 09-9-2006, postal receipts and postal acknowledgements can be received as secondary evidence as prayed for ?” 5. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the learned Judge allowed the interlocutory application on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- holding that the petitioners could properly explain the reasons by adducing proper evidence that the copies of legal notice, postal receipts and postal acknowledgements could not be traced out in spite of their efforts after the death of their father and that the Xerox copies of the above documents can be received in evidence by way of secondary evidence. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that whenever any counsel issue a notice on behalf of his/her client upon returning the office copy of legal notice, acknowledgement and receipt upon the demand of the client hand over the said documents and in turn receive the acknowledgement towards the delivery of the documents but this fact is totally absent in the present case on hand. Further the ingredients of sections 65 and 66 of Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the facts of this case. It is contended that Ex.A8 on record goes to show that the defendant No.1 was not hale and healthy and put his thumb impression on the document, which clearly shows that the documents were not received by defendant No.1 but the respondents-petitioners created a false and frivolous story of receipt of documents by defendant no.1 and the same could not be traced out in spite of their efforts after the death of their father, who is defendant No.1 living separately along with them. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the impugned order and the material placed on record. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on examining the material available on record, the learned trial Judge has rightly allowed the application by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also imposing costs on allowing such application. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that the aforesaid Xerox copies of legal notice, postal receipts and acknowledgements have to be proved by adducing necessary evidence. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in allowing the said application and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents herein in any manner and those documents will not change the nature of the main suit. The Civil Revision Petition fails and liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. 10. As a sequel to the dismissal of the main civil revision petition, CRPMP.No.1234 of 2010 which has been filed seeking to stay all further proceedings in OS.No. 4456 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, stands dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 05-03-2010. I s L COURT HALL NO. 33 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 8 9 0 OF 2010 CIRCULATION ENTRY No. 9 5 Date: 05-03-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43