THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.5168 AND 5179 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER Since the subject matter in both the revisions is connected and they arise out of the same O.P. and the common order passed by the court below and as the parties are common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in both the revisions is the claimant in O.P.No.1397/2003 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. She filed the claim petition for compensation for the death of her husband in the motor accident that took place on 16.9.2003. In he said O.P., she filed the present I.As i.e., I.A.No.1278 of 2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for further examination and I.A.No.1279/2009 under Order 8 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. to receive the ration card of B.Shivvaiah. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed both the I.As. Challenging the same, the present revisions are filed. 3. The case of the petitioner, as contended by her counsel, is that the document, which is the ration card, sought to be marked is the official document generated by downloading from online computer, which contains the number of the ration card issued by the Government and also the photo of one Boi Gangavva, Boi Shivaiah i.e. the respondents 3 and 4 in O.P.No.125/2004 on the file of the same Tribunal, which is the rival claim and the photo of one Poshaiah, who is the husband of Boyee Gangavva, who claims to be the wife of deceased Bhumaiah and which establishes that Gangavva is the daughter of one Boi Shivaiah and wife of Boyee Poshaiah, but not the wife of the deceased. It is her further case that the said document is relevant and in order to do substantial justice, the document shall be received by recalling P.W.1. As the court below failed to appreciate these aspects, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order, sought to dismiss the revisions. 5. The petitioner filed claim petition in O.P.No.1397/2003 before the court below claiming compensation for the death of her husband Bhumaiah in a motor accident that took place on 16.9.2003. The mother of the deceased filed another claim petition in O.P.No.125/2004 for the death of her deceased son Bhumaiah. In the said O.P.No.125/2004, one B.Gangavva claiming to be the wife of the deceased got impleaded as respondent No.3 and her parents as 4 and 5. Gangavva was examined as R.W.2. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the ration card now sought to be produced, would show that Gangavva is the daughter of Boi Shivaiah and wife of Boyee Poshaiah and that she is not the wife of Bhumaiah. Therefore, she sought to receive this document by recalling P.W.1. 6. But from the material available on record it could be seen that the document now sought to be marked is only a photocopy. The original is not produced. The party seeking to rely on secondary evidence should fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 63(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But no explanation is coming forth for non-production of the original. The case of the respondents is that the said document is created for the purpose of this case. Further, the Tahsildar who was examined as P.W.4, produced the other documents except the ration card and the explanation offered by him is that the said document could not be produced, because there are allegations of bogus ration card all over the state and thus the Commissioner of Civil Supplies instructed not to release the information. Therefore, in the absence of original ration card and in the absence of any reasonable explanation for its non-production and in the light of the contention of the defendant that it is created, I am of the view that the court below rightly considered these aspects and dismissed the interlocutory applications, sine no purpose would be served in recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking this document and I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the same and the revisions are devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly the revisions are dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------ 30—04—2010