ORDER
G. Rohini, J.
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30-12-2002 in I.A.No. 1079 of 2002 in O.S.No. 1930 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in the suit, who is aggrieved by the order permitting the plaintiff to mark a xerox copy of a document as secondary evidence.
3. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the main suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs alleged to be due from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that he was carrying on business along with the defendant, who is the proprietor of a firm. However, certain misunderstandings developed regarding the business transactions and the same were mutually settled between them in pursuance of which an undertaking dated 18-3-2001 was executed whereunder it was agreed that certain title deeds hypothecated by the plaintiff with Vijaya Bank in connection with the business shall be released and that in future the plaintiff is in no way concerned with the business of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that in pursuance of the said settlement he received two cheques for a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs each in full and final settlement of all his dues. However, one of the said cheques dated 30-9-2001 for Rs. 2.00 lakhs was dishonoured by the bank at the instance of the defendant to stop payment. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant and ultimately instituted the suit for recovery of the amount covered by the said cheque dated 30-9-2001 together with interest.
4. The suit was contested by the defendant. In the written statement while denying the plaint averments it is contended inter alia that the plaintiff by playing fraud obtained two cheques and also encashed one of the cheques with the connivance of the bank officials in spite of clear instructions to the banker to stop payment. It is further contended that the cheques were obtained from her forcibly by threat and coercion and she was also made to sign a few blank letterheads.
5. Pending the suit the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1079 of 2002 seeking permission of the Court to mark a xerox copy of the undertaking dated 18-3-2001 as secondary evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it is stated that the original undertaking was taken by the defendant when she issued two cheques for Rs. 2.00 lakhs each and that in spite of the notice issued, the defendant failed to produce the original document, which is in her custody. Therefore, it was prayed that he may be permitted to mark the xerox copy of the said undertaking dated 18-3-2001 as secondary evidence. The defendant filed counter stating that the undertaking letter was obtained by the plaintiff illegally by threat and coercion and that the plaintiff himself is in custody of the original document but deliberately did not produce the same to suppress the alterations and additions made in the said letter in his own handwriting.
6. The Court below on a consideration of the rival claims, by order dated 30-12-2002 allowed the petition holding that the original document was returned to the defendant when she issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff and since the defendant failed to produce the same in spite of the demand made by the plaintiff, a xerox copy of the said document can be received as secondary evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant preferred this revision petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri P. Siva Kumar and Sri D. Seshadri Naidu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order under Revision is erroneous and not in conformity with the settled principles of law regarding the secondary evidence. The learned counsel further contended that the conclusion of the Court below that the original document is in the custody of the defendant is baseless and that the learned Judge grievously erred in recording such a finding without there being any pleading or proof to that effect. Therefore according to the learned counsel the order under revision accepting the secondary evidence cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order under revision contended that the finding of the Court below that the original document is in the custody of the defendant does not suffer from any infirmity and in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below has rightly accepted the xerox copy of the said document as secondary evidence. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the amendment brought out to Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code under Act 46 of 1999, restricting the scope of interference, the order under revision does not warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
10. I have perused the order under revision and the other material on record. As can be seen, the defendant has not disputed the execution of the document in question, however, pleaded that it was obtained by the plaintiff by threat and coercion. The specific case of the plaintiff is that in pursuance of the document in question which is an undertaking dated 18-3-2001 two cheques dated 28-3-2001 and 30-9-2001 for Rs. 2.00 lakhs each were issued by the defendant and the undertaking was taken back by the defendant when the cheques were issued. The fact that one of the said cheques was already encashed by the plaintiff is also not in dispute. The suit claim is in respect of the amount covered by the other cheque dated 30-9-2001. On appreciation of the material on record the learned trial Judge recorded a finding that the original document was returned to the defendant and she failed to produce the same in spite of the demand made by the plaintiff. I do not see any justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Judge. It is well settled that this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction will not act as a court of appeal so as to reappreciate the evidence on record for recording independent findings on questions of fact.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the decision in Ashok v. Madavlal, : [1976]1SCR246 contended that since the plaintiff failed to prove that the original document is in possession of the defendant, the xerox copy cannot be said to be above suspicion and therefore the same cannot be accepted.
12. The case on hand is clearly distinguishable on facts. As observed above the execution of the document is not in dispute. Further the plea that the document was in the handwriting of the husband of the defendant is also not disputed. In the affidavit the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the original document was taken by the defendant when the cheques were issued. Having considered all the aforesaid aspects the learned trial Judge recorded a finding that the original is in the custody of the defendant. Therefore as expressed above, I do not see any reason to take a view contrary to the conclusion reached by the Court below.
13. That apart as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent the order under challenge is purely interlocutory in nature and even it had been made in favour of the revision petitioner, it could not have the effect of disposal of the suit and therefore it cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code as amended by Act 46 of 1999 which came into force with effect from 1-7-2002.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.