THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.692 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.17 of 2001 in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, against the respondents, for recovery of suit amount. The trial of the suit commenced. It filed I.A.No.1292 of 2007 under Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice to summon certain documents, which are part of the record in C.C.No.11 of 2004 on the file of the C.B.I. Court, Hyderabad. Through its order, dated 19.11.2007 the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence this revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner states that the Demand Drafts issued by the first respondent, the erstwhile employee, were encashed by respondents 7 to 11, and the ledgers in relation to the same are filed in C.C.No.11 of 2004 before the C.B.I. Court, Hyderabad. Even if that is true, the petitioner ought to have taken steps to obtain certified copies from the concerned Court. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed I.A.No.409 of 2006 almost with similar relief, and when an order was passed requesting the Court for C.B.I. Cases, the latter has expressed its inability to part with the documents till the completion of trial of C.C.No.11 of 2004. The same was taken note of and the present application was dismissed. This Court does not find any serious error or illegality in the said order. Across the bar it is stated that the petitioner is in possession of the copies of documents forming part of the ledgers. In case, it can be treated as secondary evidence, the trial Court can consider the feasibility of taking the same on record. Further, if it is found that the trial in C.C.No.11 of 2004 is concluded, the petitioner can approach the C.B.I. Court once again and obtain certified copies, and thereafter, produce them before the Court. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed upholding the order. However, it is directed that the trial Court shall consider the feasibility of receiving the documents in possession of the petitioner as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, without reference to the ingredients of the documents. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11th June, 2010 Js.