Iudge, Nizamal-rad ref-erring to jr-rclgmcnt of Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills and others t

5. Smt. krishna Kumari Mudholkar, Wo ti/loaqlleshwar Mudholkar, age. 56 years, occ. house wife, R/o H.No.7-8613, velpoor village Nizamabad 503311.

6. Gajawada Madhave, Wo Gajawa,Ja Ganesh Guptha, age 50 years, off.house wife, R/o H.No,B-215, Sri Varsicjhi Vinayaka Enclave, Arya Nagar Borgaon viillae, Nizamabad.

7. Gajawada Ganesh Guptha, S/o Gajawada Pandarinath age 54 years, off.house wife, R/o H.No.8-215, Sri Varsidhi Vinayaka Enclave, Arya Nagar Borgaon viillae, Nizamabad.

8. Bompally Rajender, s/o B.Shankariah age.51 years, occ.business, R/o H.No.1-5-25, Near Gole Hanman, Nizamabd. -a::ra-'|!3t!.+.-J. reJ B t I : i

9. Bompally Saraswath, Wo Bompally Rajender age.49 l/e;,rrs, occ.House wife R/o H.No.1-5-21i. Near Gole Hanman, trlizamabd. l0.Guggilla Sai Surnanth, s/o G.Rama Goud, age.28 year,i occ Bussiness, R/o H.No.5.-'1 1-736/1 Yellamma Gutta, Nizamabad 1 'l . Shaik Jani, s/o L ate Shaik Ghouse, age 48 years, occ. [' uit seller, R/o H.No.1-1 01, Phulong, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section .151 of CPC praying that in th:r .;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc ,rr. may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No 27 of 2016 c - lhe file of the ll Addl. Distrct J udge at Nizarnabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. G RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: P VISHNUVARDHANA ll::DDY The Court made the following: ORDER E-!r-t-.,3iI4EtEtr.-*5.9, I The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.1636 of 2O24 Order: l'his is a Revision I\'tition tile'rl aggrieved bv the orcler rtaled 29.O1.'2O2'l p:rssecl bv the learncd II Additional District Juclge, Nizamabad in I-A.No.7'14 ol '2023 in O.S.No.27 of 20 16, r.i'hereitr, a petitiort [llecl r.tnclcr Sec'tiotr 65 of Indian livirlence Act u'ith a praver to permit to mark thc xerox cop-\' of Will Decd dated I 8.O 1 . 'l 993 as lix. B 1 as secondary cvidence on tht-ir behalf, has Lteett dismissecl.

2. Hearcl Sri G. Rajeshu'ar Rzr<;, lcarned counsel for the revision petitiorrers/delendant Nos. I and 6 ar-rcl Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddr'. Icarned coultsel for the rcspondent No. 1/plaintiff. Perusecl tl're record.

3. The case of revision petitioners is that paternal grandfather o1- revisiou l)etitioner No.2 namel-t' l)r. J,axman Rao Ambekar rvas the outrer and possessor of suit schedule properties 'A' and 'B'. 'lhc said La-xmau Rao Ambekar died in the year 20 16. He executed a Wiil Deed in the presence of Sri Hari Har Rao, a Scuior Advocatc and Sri B. La-rmi -, Naravana rrrrrl :rltesk'cl ltv Att'ocate Sri Narsirir ltr lleclclr' ol.t

18.O1.199:1. 'he respon<lt'rtt No.1 uho u:rs rli' r'c'r'rl Llse.l to r-csidc u'ith lr s grandfathcr trnct assisl him. Lir l,ltrtttatl ll:trr Ambckar uilo.rccl a sharc ol lhc propt'r't\ lo r( iirotttlctrt No.l :rs rnentiorri r in the Will Deed. Thc respon, r' tt \r>. I n'tts r:ollectir-rg ren s ancl original Will Dct'cl rvas hanrlr r I oi'cr to hcr ;urcl it is in Irr r possessiot-r.'lhe rcvisiott pctitioLr ls 11ot a lega1 notice dat( 12.1O.2016 issr-ted reqLlesting to lrtl ot'er thc Will lleerl lrrr. sl-re intctrlionalh' cleuictl the sr r'. 'l'ltereforc. I)r('sent lrcrrti,rrr urrder rcrrision is Illcrl, i.e. to p'r'tttit to lead se c ondan, , '\' i, lcnce

4. Thr- rlspondent No.1 filerl colulter I,'ttrirtg thc cre'cution ol J/i11 Deed dzrtecl 18.O I . 1q93 antl rct'r'lrrre. the rllrestion o1 1;ossessing it rloes not arisc'. The r,: -,1 ,onrlent No.l plcnded thirt l:rlse story is <:reate<l fbr the pur-po-: ol the case rtnrl deniccl t Ire possessior-r of Will Dcccl br hcr iince no Will I)cecl u,as i'xlcuted bv Dr. Laxrnan Rzro r\mlr l. rr, lro rerox ('opv can lrc rc'ccived ar-r<l marked as st-condzL ' r'r'iclencc- [r-r this resarrl. llre respondent No.1 relerred to ju,rprnent of this Court in c;rsc betu.een Keshava Reddy v. B:r I Reddy and l ! ! I : I I : Y 3 others in CRP No.1846 of 2Ol2 l2OL7 lll ALD 624 (TS)1, s'hcrcin. it is held that u hctr a docurttt'ltl cxistel-rr:e iind exccrrtion is in dispute, seconclan evirlen<'t' ('t1llnot lle takc:t't anrl saicl cop-v cannot bc cxhibited

5. Upon considering tl-re version of both the partics, the learned II Addl. Distrir:t .Iudge, Nizamal-rad ref-erring to jr-rclgmcnt of Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills and others t2OlO AIR SCW 52OO) helci that xerox copies arc nol :rtlmissillle in er idencc and that once xerox copics are r-rot tidmitted, xerox t:opv ol Will Dec:d cannot be permitted to be marked irl evidence. As such, dismissecl the petition, lcading to frling of the pr-esent Civil Revision Petition.

6. In grounds of revision, the facts o[ the marn casc 1.c. Dr. Laxman Rao Ambekerr bcing the o\\'ner o[ suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, execution of a Will Decd dated 18-O 1 l993 in the presence of '"r,itnesscs, its possessiotl by rcspondent No.1 are reiterated. Legal notice n'as issued to produce the originat Will Deed but thc same is not produced bv respondent No.1 herein. Since the original is r-rot available, it E@ -l 1S plc:rrlccl t i'r -rt tl'rc x('rox coll\ be permittccl r, ),-- rTr:rrk('(l ir.) tviclcnce t() ll1'o\'(t t1-rc <';rsc ol the rer,ision I)('1, rnels, l:rilinq $'1rich, tl-r|r u i11 sulfi'r rrrcparrable Ioss. 'l'l' ,:r:r:jr' ol tlre rcvision p(,'tilionL.rs is tllzlt tl'rcir patcrrrtrl gr r tclliitlrcl- IJr Larnrrrn R:ro Ambekirr cxe<'uted Will Dcc<l cl:L

18.() L 1()93 itr thr' ;rreser:cc of s itnesses and said Wili Dc', rl is n€'cess:u1 to l)11)\'(' tlrcil cas<:. IIorvt'r,er. the original is irll :qetllr rn tlte .Llsto(l\. of rt'sponclcnt No.l and therelirre , got ;succl ;r lcgai notic(' t() hc r to prorlrr<'c tl're origitrirl Wil )cc,r1. WItcn rcsponrlent \o. 1 denicrl cxistence of thc Will r,ecl . ir xt'rox copv thr:reof is sorrght 1o lre marked as secondr ' evirlenc'r' ltr ini oking prot ision un<lcr Section 65 of Incliiu' L,.'irlenc'c A< 1 S:rrrl St'r'tiorr,)5 is cxtla('trcl eLnd produr:r'<l lteit-r,' '(r5. Ca:;es irr u,hiclr secondarv cvi<lr:r-tcc I I lrinq to rlocttnrr'nt rttatt'ltc grr c rr Scc'onc[,trr con cli t ior I ('it s('s cvirlcncc rrrirv be givcn ol- tl.rc or cont('n1s of a documerrt in tlr rsLc lt( c ,LlLrs irrg ir) \Vlren thc originirl is shown or al)pcars t I ,r ir L tlrc Posscssior.r or l)()wcr of thc pcrsr>n aglr Lr.l u,hom lllc docurncnt is sought to be proved. ,' of arrr' llc -solr out ol- reach of, or nol subje r '.o, thc l)r)ccss of thr: Court. or of any per..r lcgallr lro-Lncl to prrlrlu<:e it, ald u,hcn, :ifler , r r notr( r' ntr ntioncd ur scctron 66, sucl-t p( rsori - oes no1 prodLrce Lt; q-'.-{*l'.i ' ': ": '; :'t':: ' '-*'l/ -/' t :) b) c) d) e) 0 c) Whcn the existcnce. condition or contents of the original have been proved to bc adlnitted ir.r rir-iting by the person against wllorn it is plovcd or b\. his reprcscn tat i\.e in interest. When tl're original has bccn dcstlor ecl or krsl , or $'hcn the partl oflcring cr idt-rrce of its contents cannoL, for alv othcr reason not arising liom his ou.n default or neglccl. pr-ocluce il in rc:rsor.rilble timc: When thc original is o[ such a natrlrc as not to be easily movablc; When the original is a pr,rblir-: clocurncr)t rvithirr the meaning of section 741 When the original is a docu ment of uticl-r a certified copy is pcrmit tc.l b]- this Act, or b,r anv other law in forcc in Indi:r to bc givcr-r in er.irlence; When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents w.hich caLrnot com.cniently be cxamined in Court, and the fact to bc provcd is thc general result of thc u1-role collectior-r. In cases (a), (c) and (d), arry sccondary cvidence of the contents of the documents is admissible. In case (b), the written adnission is admissiblc In case (c) or (f), a cer(ified copy of documcnt, but no other kind of secondary er.idcncc, is aclmissiblc. In case (g), evidencc ma1,be givcn as to ttre gcncral r-csult of the documents by any pcrsolr rvho has exarnined them, ald who is skilled in thc ex:rmination of such documents.

7. The above Section 65 of Indiar-r Evidence Act makes it clear that secondary evidence can be received onh'in cerlain -!-.-_,-@'.ti: Tr3 &':!,{*y.r ,\i i.' i r 6 r:ircumstancer; u'I-rct't it is short'n that said docL:'t'ell1 is in the 1;ossessiort t,t' pou'el' of the persot't agarn 't u'hom the r.locument is .;ought to bc provcn or all-\ pcrso r ,r ho is out of r-e:rch of the Llortrt or anY persotr s ho is bount' llr proclucc it, :rnd in spite ol girring notice under SectiorL r6 cloes not proclucc it or u,hen the original is destroyed or lost or w'l.len the pa11,\' otf(rrilrq ervictence oI its contents c:]'t1ot. firr ienr reason not ol his ou'n default or neglect is un:llr c to prorluce it or rt'hen tl'rc original is of such a natLlre as r( l to be easilr rrlovable. l{orvcver. rt'hetr a document is not p:r,luced br-rt its cxistence, ccndition or contents have been lrroved to be admittecl in ririting br.' the person against 'nl'l''rrrr it ls to bc provc'cl or b., I-ris rcpre se n t:lti\.c in interest a1:;.; a rlocrnlent mav be marl<r:d in secondarl, evidence.

8. In Lhc inslllnL casc, the Will Decd is soug r' to bc proven :egainst respondcnt No.l arnd shc is denying e)ici rution of said Wili Dered. Wl're'n there is c-leni:1l, since there i:' lo aclmissiorl in u,riting br respondent No.l rvith respect to .rristence of the Wilt Deecl tis'r'ell as its contents, xerox copy of s, rid clocument cannot be m.arked as secondary evidence as . re cotlditions i I I I I i I I i I I I t I I I I , I I i I i I i I t n I I : ,, 1: : 7 laid dor,r.n in Section 65 of Indian Evidertr:e Act are not satisfied. As such, there are no merits in thc Rcvision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 . Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petit ion is dismissecl corrfirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed bv the learnecl It Aclditior-ral District Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.744 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2076. Related interim applications are also dismissed. No costs. SD/- M. NAGAM AS ISTANT RE AR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, '1 The ll Addl. Distrct Judge at Nizamabad 2. One CC to SRI G RAJESHWAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies tiR rgh w 1 l 'i i ' i i , i I I t- i i , a HIGH COURT DATED:1210U2A25 ORDER CRP.No.1636 of 2A24 ' 5 'ilti ?t?l i2 \ \t.. DISMISSING THE CRP Srd"t )k*