IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3126 of 2010 BETWEEN: M. Gouri Devi and Company. ... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal, Warangal. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondent: MR. V. DURGA NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1638 of 2004 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2010 passed in I.A.No.1232 of 2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.1638 of 2004 against the respondent for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant and his agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of his house bearing No.8-5-1 situated at Under Bridge Road, Girmajipet, Warangal. It is the case of the petitioner that he acquired title to the said property by registered sale deed dated 01.02.1960. Along with the suit, in the list of documents the certified copy of the sale deed was filed on the ground that the original sale deed was misplaced and lost and the same was not traceable. The petitioner filed an application being I.A.No.1232 of 2009 to permit him to mark the said certified copy of the document bearing No.122 of 1960 as secondary evidence. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Court below under the impugned order stating that the petitioner has not stated as to what happened to the original document and how he is unable to secure the original sale deed. 4. Cases in which secondary evidence can be lead is governed by the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’). From a perusal of Section 65 (c) of the Act, it is clear that when the original is destroyed or lost, the party can be permitted to lead secondary evidence. I have perused the copy of the affidavit filed in support of the said interlocutory application wherein the petitioner clearly stated that the original document is misplaced and is not traceable, as such he obtained certified copy of the sale deed. In view of the said statement in the affidavit, it cannot be said that no reasons are stated by the petitioner in support of the application I.A.No.1232 of 2009 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by allowing marking of the certified copy of the document. When it is stated that the original of the document is misplaced and not traceable and a certified copy is filed, there is no reason for not allowing the aforesaid application. For the aforesaid reasons, the order in I.A.No.1232 of 2009 in O.S.No.1638 of 2004 dated 09.06.2010 is set aside. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.1232 of 2009 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J October 26, 2010 DSK