ORDER: This Revision Petition has been filed by the third defendant in O.S.No.230 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli against the orders of the said Court, dated 13-02-2008. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. During the course of evidence, DW-1 was examined and through him, the defendants sought to mark a xerox copy of an unregistered sale deed. The plaintiff's counsel raised an objection that the document is not properly stamped; that it is an unregistered document; that the document is not properly visible and that it is not admissible in evidence, therefore, it shall not be marked. After hearing both parties, the Court passed the following order: "The document executed by D.W.1 as Ex.B11 is seems to be a Xerox copy said to be executed on a Non-Judl. Stamp paper of Rs.20/-. The said document said to be executed on 13-11-1991, but the stamp paper purchased on 13-1-1992, further it is the contention of D.W.1 that he handed over the original to P.W.1 for the purpose of registration, but she refused to register it and retained by her. Not-withstanding to whereabouts the original, in my opinion, Ex.B11 is not admissible in evidence even as secondary evidence, because of improper stamp duty. Therefore, considering the objections of the plaintiff that document is not legible partly and some of the parts of the document such as extent of the land, signature of executants and the signature of the witnesses appears brightly. Under these circumstances, this court is of opinion that Ex.B11 is not admissible evidence as secondary evidence, in view of the improper stamp duty and it is not a registered document." 3. Being aggrieved by the above order, the third defendant preferred the present Revision by contending that under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 4 of C.P.C. and Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, an unregistered sale deed cannot be held to be inadmissible at the stage of recording the evidence of DW-1 though the document is a Xerox coy of the original unregistered sale deed, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Earlier, the defendants filed I.A.No.204 of 2006 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to receive and mark the xerox copy of the sale deed as secondary evidence. 4. Earlier, the defendants filed I.A.No.204 of 2006 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to receive and mark the xerox copy of the sale deed as secondary evidence. When the Application was dismissed by the lower Court, the defendants preferred C.R.P.No.6016 of 2006 challenging the said order before this Court and this Court, through the order, dated 03-08-2007 allowed the Revision Petition by setting aside the order in I.A.No.204 of 2006 and allowed the Revision Petition by granting leave to adduce secondary evidence in respect of the said document. 5. The revision petitioner, by relying on the order of this Court, contends that the lower Court is not entitled to reject the documents from marking on behalf of the defendants without giving an opportunity to them to adduce secondary evidence as to why the petitioner filed a Xerox copy of the original sale deed and what happened to the original sale deed. 6. In the earlier Revision Petition, the petitioner contended that the rejection of the Application to receive the xerox copy of the unregistered sale deed, without giving opportunity to the petitioner of adducing secondary evidence, is not justified, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside. In support of the contentions, the petitioner's counsel relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in NAWAB SINGH v. INDERJIT KAUR, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: "Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer seeking leave of the Court for production of secondary evidence. The prayer has been rejected mainly on the ground that the copy of the rent note sought to be produced by the appellant was of doubtful veracity. The trial Court was not justified in forming that opinion without affording the appellant an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence. The appellant has alleged the original rent note to be in possession of the respondent. The case was covered by Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." 7. The trial Court was not justified in forming that opinion without affording the appellant an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence. The appellant has alleged the original rent note to be in possession of the respondent. The case was covered by Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." 7. The petitioner's counsel also relied on MURTAZA MOSSAVI v. HEMENDRA V. SHAH AND ANOTHER, wherein this held as follows: "The case of the petitioner herein is that during the cross-examination, first respondent as P.W.1 admitted that rent collector, Rajeswara Rao, used to collect rents and made the entries in a register. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.132 of 2002 under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC before the learned Rent Controller to direct the first respondent to produce the original rent register. The first respondent refused to produce the original rent register alleging that in spite of making search, he could not trace it and that Rajeswara Rao left the employment of first respondent abruptly. It is only then the petitioner filed application under Section 65 of the Act. In such a situation, the petitioner herein as a party summoning the documents from the opposite party, is entitled to file Xerox copies as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Act." 8. It was contended by the plaintiff in the said Revision Petition that the existence of the original document itself is in dispute and the defendants failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to adduce secondary evidence and in support of his contentions, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS, wherein the Supreme Court held as under "The documents undoubtedly would have thrown light upon the matter but they were not admissible because they were only copies. The originals were not produced at any time nor was any foundation laid for the establishment of the right to give secondary evidence. The High Court rejected them and it was plainly right in so deciding." 9. The originals were not produced at any time nor was any foundation laid for the establishment of the right to give secondary evidence. The High Court rejected them and it was plainly right in so deciding." 9. The plaintiff's counsel also relied on ASHOK DULICHAND v. MADHAVLAL DUBE AND ANOTHER, wherein the Supreme Court held thus: "Where in an election petition by an elector challenging the election of successful candidate to the Legislative Assembly the petitioner sought to file a Photostat copy of the manuscript of a leaflet alleged to have been written by that candidate making defamatory and false averments against an unsuccessful candidate and the petitioner failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the Photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken, the Photostat copy being not above suspicion the petitioner could not be permitted to lead secondary evidence in the shape of Photostat copy when there was neither any averment nor any material to show that the original document was in possession of the successful candidate." 10. It is contended by the Revision petitioner at one point of time that the plaintiff snatched away the original unregistered sale deed and at another point of time, it was alleged that the son-in-law of the plaintiff snatched away the said document. The Revision Petitioner also filed a report before the police against the snatching of the sale deed, but the report was closed as false. The Revision Petitioner contended that the original unregistered sale deed was snatched away from her by the plaintiff at the time of registering the same at Sub-Registrar's office, Peddapalli and after snatching away the sale deed, the plaintiff refused to register the same and in such a situation, the defendants are entitled to file xerox copy of the unregistered sale deed as secondary evidence under Section 65 (A) of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. 11. In the earlier Revision Petition, this Court, having considered the submissions and the legal position relied on by both parties, without expressing any opinion as to the veracity of the documents in question, felt that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the xerox copy of the unregistered sale deed is permitted to be received and further observed that the validity, legality or otherwise of the documents will be considered during the course of trial and for that purpose, an opportunity should be given to the revision petitioner to lead secondary evidence. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court, instead of giving opportunity to adduce secondary evidence regarding the circumstances under which the xerox copy is filed, passed the impugned order by observing that the document is not admissible in evidence on the ground that it is not properly stamped and unregistered document. 13. The document produced by the defendants is not an original document. It is not properly stamped and not registered. It is not the certified copy or registration extract of the sale deed. It is not a document simultaneously taken along with the original. The lower Court observed that it is not properly stamped. If it is a stamped document, though it is unregistered, it can be used for collateral purpose though not for proving the title. Unless and until the original is produced, the stamp duty cannot be collected. Unless the deficit stamp duty is collected, it cannot be treated as a document admissible in evidence. The lower Court further observed that the date of the document was 13- 11-1991 but the stamp paper used for the said document is dated 13-01-1992. It is not explained by the defendant whether the xerox copy was taken before the original snatched away by the plaintiff or it was brought into existence subsequently. If it is the contention of the defendants that the xerox copy was taken before the plaintiff snatching away the original, they did not explain as to how it is possible to use the stamp dated 13-01-1992 when the document was executed on 13-11-1991. If the copy was not taken before the plaintiff snatching away the original document, there is no explanation from the defendants as to how the contents of the original document were incorporated in the present document. 14. If the copy was not taken before the plaintiff snatching away the original document, there is no explanation from the defendants as to how the contents of the original document were incorporated in the present document. 14. Section 65 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: 65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.- Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:-- (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power- Of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or Of any person legally bound to produce it. And when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it: (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74; (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by other law in force [India] to be given in evidence; (g) When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved in the general result of the whole collection. In case (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, admissible. In case (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents." If the document is properly stamped and if the original is produced, it can be treated as a document admissible or in the absence of a copy prepared simultaneously with the original, a registration extract or a certified copy can be treated as a document admissible in evidence. But, in the absence of such material, the lower Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the document cannot be admitted even as secondary evidence on account of improper stamp duty and non-registration. 15. Though this Court observed that the Revision Petitioner can be given an opportunity to lead secondary evidence, in the light of the circumstances mentioned supra, the lower Court was right in refusing to mark the documents and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.