THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1664 OF 2010 DATED: 01-02-2011 Between: A.P.State Wakf Board, Rep.by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER And Zafarullah Khan & 6 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04.01.2010, in I.A.No.683 of 2009 in O.S.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 CPC for marking the certified copy of the agreement of lease, dated 22-05-1980, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for cancellation of the declaration of the suit premises as Wakf property. Petitioner-1st defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. During the course of trial, while the petitioners-defendants’ evidence was in progress, petitioner filed I.A.No.683 of 2009 seeking permission to mark the certified copy of the agreement of lease, dated 22-05-1980, as an exhibit on their side. Respondents opposed the said application on the ground that the said document is inadmissible in evidence and also D1 has not explained the loss of the original. After hearing both sides, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the Wakf Board-D1 filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Even according to the petitioner, the disputed document, which is stated to be an agreement of lease, is not a certified copy. That is only an attested true copy. According to the petitioner, the original of the said document is lost in their office records. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, no material is placed on record to show that the original is lost and therefore petitioner is justified in adducing secondary evidence. 5. It is well settled that unless and until the party explains and satisfies the Court about the loss of the original, the occasion to permit him to adduce secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act does not arise. In the present case, petitioner even having failed to explain the loss of the original, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner to adduce secondary evidence. Secondly, the document sought to be marked by the petitioner is not a certified copy, but is only an attested true copy. The said document, even according to the petitioner, is an agreement of lease for 60 years. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the disputed document purports to be a lease deed for 60 years and therefore inadmissible in evidence as the same is neither stamped nor registered. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to a decision reported in MANDA LAXMI RAJAM, GOURAIAH v. KANAPARTHI LAXMI BAI @ LAXMI, LATE SRI KANAKASENA RAO[1], wherein this Court, under similar circumstances, held as follows: “The document produced by the defendants is not an original document. It is not properly stamped and not registered. It is not the certified copy or registration extract of the sale deed. It is not a document simultaneously taken along with the original. The lower Court observed that it is not properly stamped. If it is a stamped document, though it is unregistered it can be used for collateral purpose though not for proving the title. Unless and until the original is produced, the stamp duty cannot be collected. Unless the deficit stamp duty is collected, it cannot be treated as a document admissible in evidence. The lower Court further observed that the date of the document was 13-11-1991 but the stamp paper used for the said document is dated 13-01-1992. It is not explained by the defendant whether the xerox copy was taken before the original snatched away by the plaintiff or it was brought into existence subsequently. If it is the contention of the defendants that the xerox copy was taken before the plaintiff snatching away the original, they did not explain as to how it is possible to use the stamp dated 13-01-1992 when the document was executed on 13-11-1991. If the copy was not taken before the plaintiff snatching away the original document, there is no explanation from the defendants as to how the contents of the original document were incorporated in the present document”. 7. In the present case also, the disputed document is admittedly not the original document and is also not a certified copy in terms of Section 76 of the Evidence Act and is not a copy simultaneously taken along with the original but is only an attested true copy. 8. In view of the above decision, the disputed document cannot be received as evidence as the same does not satisfy the test of admissibility. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in M.ARUNA v. TRILOK KUMAR SANGHI[2], wherein xerox copy of undated and unsigned statement/calculations was sought to be marked as secondary evidence on the ground that the original was in the custody of the opposite party. 10. In the above decision, it is held that the plaintiff may be permitted to mark the said document as secondary evidence, subject to the condition of the learned Judge considering of the other aspects at the appropriate stage while deciding the suit. 11. The above decision does not apply to the facts of the present case for the reason that the disputed document is purported to be a lease for 60 years that requires stamp and also registration and therefore inadmissible in evidence and further the original of the disputed document was, even according to the petitioner, lost in his custody, but the same is not satisfactorily explained. The impugned order, refusing to receive the disputed document for the purpose of accepting as evidence, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court as the same does not suffer from illegality or material irregularity. 12. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 20-04-2010 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st February, 2011. Tsy/Ksp [1] 2008 LAP-O-239 [2] 2009 (3) ALD 553