Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Prakash, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Mysore in O.S. No.1223/06. The impugned order rejected I.A. No.2 filed by the petitioner under Sections 63 and 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking permission to mark a photocopy of a sale deed dated 24.9.2005 as secondary evidence. The petitioner claimed that the original sale deed was lost and that he had no other means to prove its execution. The respondents opposed the application. The trial court, after considering rival contentions and referring to various provisions of the Evidence Act and CPC, dismissed the application. The High Court, in its order dated 13.3.2014, allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to mark the photocopy of the sale deed as secondary evidence, subject to proof of loss and authenticity at the time of trial. The court held that the trial court had not properly appreciated the petitioner's plea and the legal provisions governing secondary evidence.
Headnote
A) Evidence Act - Secondary Evidence - Admissibility of Photocopy - Sections 63 and 64 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The petitioner sought to mark a photocopy of a sale deed as secondary evidence claiming the original was lost. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that the trial court failed to properly consider the petitioner's plea of loss of original and the provisions of Sections 63 and 64. The court allowed the petition and directed the trial court to permit marking of the photocopy subject to proof of loss and authenticity at trial. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - The application was also filed under Section 151 CPC. The High Court noted that the trial court's order was unsustainable as it did not adequately address the petitioner's contention that the original document was lost and that secondary evidence was permissible. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to mark a photocopy of a sale deed as secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the original was allegedly lost.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Mysore on I.A. No.2 in O.S. No.1223/06 is quashed. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to mark the photocopy of the sale deed dated 24.9.2005 as secondary evidence, subject to proof of loss and authenticity at the time of trial.
Law Points
- Secondary evidence
- admissibility of photocopy
- proof of loss of original
- Sections 63 and 64 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 151 CPC
