Judgment This revision is filed against the order dated 19.04.2008 in I.A. No.63 of 2008 in O.S. No.154 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present I.A. under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to receive Photostat copy of the agreement of sale dated 22.06.2000 as secondary evidence. After the enquiry, the trial Court allowed the I.A. holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 can be permitted to mark Photostat copy of the agreement of sale only to show that it is not signed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved thereby, this C.R.P. has been filed by the revision petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 4. The case of the revision petitioner is that the trial Court has erred in allowing the I.A. filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to mark Photostat copy of agreement of sale dated 22.06.2000 as secondary evidence, as it is contrary to the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and that a Photostat copy can be fabricated by adding or removing other portions by mechanical process, and as such, the same is inadmissible in the evidence. Further, it is the case of the revision petitioner that original agreement of sale was already marked as Ex.A.1 on his behalf. He denied that respondent No.3 was abroad as on the date of agreement of sale and that the signature of respondent No.3 on it was forged one. In fact, the agreement of sale is signed by all the respondents. The respondents filed complaint in C.C.No.168 of 2007 to that effect, but the revision petitioner was discharged. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that it is necessary to mark Photostat copy of the agreement of sale to prove that respondent No.3 did not sign on the agreement of sale and it is evident from the written statement of respondent No.3. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that it is necessary to mark Photostat copy of the agreement of sale to prove that respondent No.3 did not sign on the agreement of sale and it is evident from the written statement of respondent No.3. To prove this limited aspect, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference from this Court and as such the C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had only signed on the agreement of sale and respondent No.3 was abroad on the date of execution of agreement of sale and the same is evident from the Passport of respondent No.3. On the other hand, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that respondents have not filed Passport of respondent No.3 to show that he was aboard as on the date of execution of agreement of sale. The trial Court has categorically observed that I.A. was ordered for limited purpose i.e. marking Photostat copy of the agreement of sale to show that it was not signed by respondent No.3. Mere marking a Photostat copy of the agreement of sale does not mean that it is fatal to the case of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is at liberty to rebut the contention of the respondents that respondent No.3 was abroad at the time of execution of agreement and he did not sign on it, and can establish his case that respondent No.3 was very much in India at the time of execution of agreement of sale and he did sign on it by taking recourse to other mode of evidence. Apart from that, this revision is filed after more than two years of passing of the impugned order. 7. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or irregularity warranting interference from this Court and the C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed confirming the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. Since the suit is of the year 2003, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this C.R.P.