The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the Photostat companyy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken.
1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed Photostat companyy.
Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case respondent number 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat companyy might be got examined from a handwriting expert.
The challenge in the civil revision was that the aforesaid documents companyld number have been marked and taken as secondary evidence since they are photo companyies.
B 1 to B 8 were marked and taken as secondary evidence.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the civil revision petition filed.
The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.12625 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in the said petition was to the order dated 3.11.2003 in OS No.
30 of 1999 on the file of learned First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad wherein document Exh.
