Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chandabolu Bhaskara Rao vs Betha Saidi Reddy on 5 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)ALD572, 2006(4)ALT245, 2007(I)ARBLR229(AP), I(2007)BC229
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. In a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by the revision petitioner in his favour, revision petitioner filed petitions to receive the xerox copy of the suit promissory note and to permit him to lead evidence in respect of the xerox copy of the suit promissory note filed by him. The learned Judge while allowing the petition to receive the document dismissed the petition seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence in respect of the suit promissory note. Hence this revision is filed.
2. The case of the revision petitioner is that as no attestors were present at the time of execution of the suit promissory note, and since the suit promissory note filed into Court by the respondent-plaintiff contains the attestation of two attestors, it is clear that the suit promissory note is materially altered and so, in order to establish that the suit promissory note is materially altered by obtaining the signatures of two persons as its attestors, it is necessary to permit the revision petitioner to adduce evidence in that regard and that the trial Court which received the xerox copy of the suit promissory note - not containing the signatures of any attestors, was in error in not permitting the revision petitioner to lead evidence in respect of that xerox copy.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that since essential ingredients for leading secondary evidence are not established by the revision petitioner, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.
4. Since promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable document, even if the signatures of the attestors are taken, after its execution it does not amount to material alteration, and so it does not get vitiated. Therefore, whether there were attestors or not at the time of its execution is immaterial, more so when its execution is admitted.
5. The specific case of the revision petitioner is that the suit promissory note was obtained in the name of the respondent by the father of the respondent and that he made certain payments to the father of the revision petitioner (sic, respondent) thereunder and that those payments are not shown in the plaint. Revision petitioner has to establish those pleas taken by him in his written statement by adducing evidence in that regard.
6. Xerox copy of a document need not necessarily be an exact and true replica of the original document, because some portions or parts of the writings in the original may be screened or shadowed by placing a paper thereon. Therefore a xerox copy of a document may not contain all the details available in the original. By that mode of placing a paper on the signatures, signatures in the original can be made to disappear in its xerox copy. Likewise signatures of persons which do not appear in the original, can be made to appear in a xerox copy. In view thereof, merely because the xerox copy of the suit promissory note produced by the revision petitioner may not be containing the signatures of the attestors, it cannot positively be said that the signatures of the attestors were obtained therein subsequently. So unless the person who took the xerox copy is examined and is subjected to cross-examination by the other side or unless the other side admits that the xerox copy of a document is the exact replica of the original, it cannot positively be said that a xerox copy of a document is the exact replica of the original document.
7. How and when the revision petitioner could obtain the xerox copy of the suit promissory note is also not explained by the revision petitioner. When the original is available question of permitting secondary evidence in respect thereof does not arise and so the trial Court cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the petition seeking permission to lead secondary evidence
8. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit on its merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.