THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4203 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 12.08.2009, in I.A.No.1073 of 2009 in O.S.No.109 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Section 65 (b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Act”) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to admit Photostat copy of agreement of sale, dated 13.06.2005, and to mark the same as exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to lead secondary evidence on the said document by producing the Photostat copies. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case falls under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 65 of the Act and therefore, the document is ought to have been received by the trial Court as secondary evidence and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Section 65 of the Act deals with situations where the secondary evidence can be given of existence, conditions and contents of a document. Clauses (b) and (c) thereof read as follows: “(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;” “(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;” 5. There is no dispute or doubt about the contents of the Photostat copy of the document. Whether the contents of the original document are true and correct have to be resolved and decided during the trial of the case. Similarly, the party who seeks the Photostat copy of a document to be received as evidence has to establish that the original document has been lost or destroyed. Those aspects can be decided during trial only. So, at this stage, receipt of document subject to admissibility, relevancy and proof cannot be denied. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 12.08.2009, in I.A.No.1073 of 2009 in O.S.No.109 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the document shall be received subject to admissibility, relevancy and proof with regard to clauses (b) and (c) of Section 65 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 23, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4203 OF 2009 Between: Shaik Moulana .....PETITIONER AND Eluguri Rajeswararao (dies) and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4203 OF 2009 November 23, 2010