HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.548 OF 2008 DATE:21-12-2010 BETWEEN Guntupalli Pitchayya (died) per L.Rs. & others. …Petitioners AND Sitarama Granite Metal Industries, a firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Koganti Nageswara Rao & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.548 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed to revise the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 22.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.461 of 2002 in refusing to mark the Xerox copies of the accounts as secondary evidence. The suit was filed for dissolution of the partnership firm; for rendition of accounts; for interest on the amounts payable by the first defendant-firm to the petitioners-plaintiffs till realization of the amount and for passing a preliminary decree for winding up of the firm by appointing a receiver to take possession of the property. It is contended that the defendants 2 and 4 were managing the affairs of the firm and were maintaining two sets of accounts, one for the Government purpose and the other for themselves in their own handwriting, but the same was denied by the defendants in their written statement. Therefore, the petitioners-plaintiffs sought to mark the Xerox copies of the account books stating that they are in the own handwriting of defendants 2 and 4 for the period from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000; from 1.4.2000 to 28.2.2001; from 17.4.2001 to 31.10.2001. According to the petitioners-plaintiffs, they came to know that the defendants 2 and 4 have maintained two sets of accounts of first defendant firm i.e. one for Government purpose and another for themselves; that they came to know that the accounts prepared for themselves are in the own handwriting of defendants 2 and 4; and that the plaintiffs were able to procure Xerox copies of the said accounts. Therefore, the lower Court held that the plaintiffs are not definite about the maintenance of the accounts for which Xerox copies are filed and that they are not definite about the existence of those documents. Except the oral averment, there was no other material placed on record to indicate that the original documents are in possession of the defendants 2 and 4. Until and unless the petitioners-plaintiffs prove the existence and execution of the original documents by the defendants 2 and 4, the Xerox copies of accounts cannot be marked as secondary evidence. As the petitioners-plaintiffs have not stated that necessary notice contemplated under Section 66 of the Evidence Act has been issued to the defendants 2 and 4 to cause production of original of those accounts and that as they have not complied the condition for adducing the secondary evidence, the lower Court rightly refused to mark the Xerox copies of accounts as secondary evidence. The order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 21, 2010 Tsr.