THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :4709 of 2009 Dated:21.6.2010 Between: Renigunta Jhonson & another. Petitioners. And: N.Somasundaram & others. Respondents. This Court made the following : ​THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :4709 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2009 passed in I.A.No:858 of 2009 in O.P.No:709 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in O.P.No:709 of 2008. The said O.P is filed under the provisions of the Societies Act seeking directions for permission to caste their votes in the elections of the 3rd respondent-Church, which is associating. When he was examined as P.w.1 he wanted to file certain documents viz., (1) list of donors for church edifice, (2) the bye laws of the Centenary Baptist Church, Hanmkonda signed by the Secretary of the Church, (3) Bulletin of Centenary Baptist Church, Hanamkonda, (4) receipt dated 20.2.1978 issued by the Registrary of Societies, Hyderabad, (5) Certified copy of the memorandum of the society and (6) Rules and Regulations of the Centenary Baptist Church, Hanamkonda and list of Managing Committee-2007, as secondary evidence stating that he could not get the original documents. The Court below by impugned order rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioners have not complied the provisions of section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this Civil revision petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that before filing of the suit, the petitioner have already issued notice and as such, the Court below erred in rejecting the application in I.A.No:858 of 2009. I have perused the copy of the affidavit filed in support of this application in I.A.No:858 of 2009. Although it is a case of the petitioners that they could not get the originals as they were with the respondents but, they have not issued any notice for production of such documents before filing the present application. Under section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, unless party gives a prior notice to the person in whose possession such documents are there, the applicant cannot be permitted to lead secondary evidence even before issuance of notice. In the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, there is no indication of giving any prior notice as contemplated under section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order of the court below. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners file fresh application after giving necessary notice as contemplated under section 66 of the Evidence Act, it is open to the Court below to consider such application afresh without reference to the order of this Court. Subject to the above observation, this C.R.P is dismissed. ___________________________ Justice R.Subhash Reddy Dated: 21.6.2010 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:4709 OF 2009 21.6.2010