B. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) -THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, the Civil Revision Petition itself was taken up for final disposal in view of the fact that the notice to respondent has been dispensed with since he has remained absent and was placed ex-parte before the trial court. Heard the arguments on merits and carefully perused the case records. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed a suit in S. G. No. 7533/1994 before the Court of Small causes Judge, Bangalore against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,300/- due on a commercial transaction. The respondent: held purchased textile goods from the petitioner on credit basis and the petitioner had prepared invoices in duplicate which were signed by the respondent and the originals of which were given to the respondent as per the mercantile practice followed by the 'business community. That the respondent had made certain payments to the petitioner and the petitioner had issued the receipts to the respondent in the very same way as the invoices were prepared. That the respondent though served with the summons in the suit, he had remained absent and was placed ex parte by the trial Court on 27. 6. 1995. That the petitioner had examined himself as PW 1 on 26. 5. 1997 and had sought to mark and exhibit original carbon copies of the Invoices and Receipts. The petitioner had based his suit on the invoices which were raised on the respondent. The trial Court has observed that since the signature of the petitioner and the respondent is in carbon, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Being aggrieved by the said observations in the course of evidence of the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1-989 SC 702 has contended that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in not noticing that the carbon copies were admissible in evidence and ought to have marked and exhibited the same in evidence. The court below having refused to mark them in evidence has committed an error of jurisdiction. The court below having refused to mark them in evidence has committed an error of jurisdiction. ( 3 ) IN AIR 1989 SC 703 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is held as under :"besides, since the carbon copy was made by one uniform process the same was primary evidence within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the medical certificate Ex. PE was clearly admissible in evidence. "it is thus clear from the above decision of hon'ble Supreme Court that if the carbon copy was made by one uniform process, the same was primary evidence witin the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence act and hence the carbon copy is admissible in evidence. In this case, it is not 'in dispute that when PW 1 was examined in court, he wanted to mark the carbon copies of the two bills containing the signature of the defendant. The court below declined to mark the same on the ground that they are not admissible in evidence as exhibits. A perusal of ievidence of PW1, a copy of which has been produced alongwith this C. R. P. would show that the suit of the plaintiff was based on these two bills and the plaintiff wanted to mark these two documents through PW 1. His evidence would reveal that they are caron copies containing the signature of the defendant and the original bills were given to the party i. e. the respondent. But the court below is of the view that" they are only carbon copies and hence they are not admissible ,in evideince. This view of the trial Court is improper and illegal in view of the above decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the order of the trial court refusing to mark the carbon copies of the two bills cannot be sustained and it is liable to set aside. In my view, declining to mark the material documents in the case will amount to a serious illegality which may be interfered with in Revision. Therefore, halving given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the act of the trial court declining to mark the carbon copies is an error of jurisdiction and hence it is liable to be set aside. Therefore, halving given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the act of the trial court declining to mark the carbon copies is an error of jurisdiction and hence it is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) IN the result, therefore, the Revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The observation of the trial court that the carbon copies cannot be marked as exhibits in evidence is hereby set aside. The petitioner is, permitted to mark the carbon copies of the documents as exhibits in the evidence and the trial court shall permit them to be marked in evidence of PW 1 provided they are the carban copies prepared or made by one uniform process with the originals. No costs. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .