Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dekon Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 18/03/2017 passed by the learned trial court dismissing its application for leave to produce secondary evidence of a notarized copy of the statement of accounts. The petitioner had filed a civil suit against the respondents, who are the legal heirs of late Savio Monteiro, for recovery of amounts due under a business transaction. During the course of the suit, the petitioner sought to produce a notarized copy of the statement of accounts as secondary evidence, claiming that the original was lost. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the present petition. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that the endorsement made by the deceased Savio Monteiro at the foot of the statement of accounts constituted an admission under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that secondary evidence was admissible under Section 65 of the Act when the original is lost or not produced despite notice. The respondents' counsel opposed the petition. The court analyzed the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and held that the trial court had erred in dismissing the application without considering that the endorsement by the deceased amounted to an admission. The court noted that the trial court failed to appreciate that the statement of accounts with the endorsement was a document that could be admitted as secondary evidence. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence of the notarized copy of the statement of accounts. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Evidence Act - Secondary Evidence - Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Leave to produce secondary evidence of a notarized copy of statement of accounts - The petitioner sought to produce a notarized copy of the statement of accounts as secondary evidence after the original was allegedly lost. The trial court dismissed the application. The High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application without considering that the endorsement by the deceased predecessor at the foot of the statement constitutes an admission under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65 when the original is lost or not produced despite notice. The court allowed the petition and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence. (Paras 3-6) B) Evidence Act - Admission - Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Endorsement by deceased on statement of accounts - The endorsement made by the deceased Savio Monteiro at the foot of the statement of accounts acknowledging the transaction amounts to an admission under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it suggests an inference as to a fact in issue. The court noted that the trial court failed to appreciate this aspect. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for leave to produce secondary evidence of a notarized copy of the statement of accounts, and whether the endorsement by the deceased predecessor constitutes an admission under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 18/03/2017, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence of the notarized copy of the statement of accounts. The trial court was also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Secondary evidence admissible under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 when original is lost or not produced despite notice
- Admission under Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 includes oral or documentary statements suggesting inference as to fact in issue
- Notarized copy of statement of accounts with endorsement by deceased is admissible as secondary evidence
