Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Since the original letters/office orders were not available on the summoned record, an application was preferred on 13.1.2020 by the respondent to lead secondary evidence to prove letter dated 11.01.2013 bearing No. E (10) hiring/PSWC/Genl. Moga/2007/5256 dated 5/7/12.2012 and D.O. No Q.C. 7/Rice Inspection/Genl./2004-2005 dated 20.12.2004/1523. The application was contested on ground that the application does not fulfil the precondition as laid down in Section 65 (a) to 65 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was argued that the existence of the original document of which secondary evidence is sought, has not been proved and an attested document cannot be considered. The documents of 2 of 9 which secondary evidence is sought are not certified copies, as such secondary evidence cannot be permitted. It is argued that FCI has not stated as to how the original document has been lost or destroyed. On hearing the arguments, the trial court allowed the application to adduce secondary evidence. Hence the instant revision petition.

M.Thangamuthu & Anr., ., (2010) 9 SCC 712)"

9. In Marwari Kumhar v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri 2000 (4) RCR ( Civil) 729 it has been held as under:

"This it is to be seen that under sub-clause (c) of Section 65, where the original has been lost or destroyed, then secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. Sub- clause (c) is independent of sub-clause (f). Secondary evidence can be led, even of a public document, if the conditions as laid down under sub-clause (c) are fulfilled. Thus if the original of the public document has been lost or destroyed then the secondary evidence can be given even of a public document. This is the law as has been laid down this Court in Mst. Bibi Aisha and others v. The Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis Avaqaf and others, reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 253. In this case a suit had been filed for setting aside a registered mokarrai lease deed and for restoration of possession of properties. The suit had been filed on behalf of a Waqf. The Original Waqf Deed was lost and an ordinary copy of the Waqf Deed was produced in evidence . The question was whether an ordinary copy was admissible in evidence and whether or not secondary evidence could be led of a public document. The Court held that under Section 65 clauses (a) and
b) When a party seeks to produce Photostat copy it has to lay the foundational facts by proving that original document existed and is lost or is in possession of opposite party who failed to produce it. Mere assertion of the party is not sufficient to prove these foundational facts.
c) The objections as to non existence of such circumstances or non existence of foundational facts must be taken at earliest by the opposite party after the photostat copy is tendered in evidence.