Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In the case on hand, such a foundation has been made in the application itself by the complainant by stating that the original documents are missing from the Trial Court records. Therefore, the complainant may be directed to place the photocopy thereof.

18. Production of the secondary evidence and proof thereof is altogether a different issue.

19. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in the impugned order while rejecting the prayer in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, has formed an opinion that the complainant in order to establish the fact of service of notice, has to take proper recourse with regard to obtaining documents from postal acknowledgement. The notice came to be served according to the appellants on 20.06.2007. The order of the First Appellate Court is dated 24.07.2015. Whether at all postal authorities would keep those records for such a long time is a question that had to be taken note of by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.

23. There cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the case of Kaliya as referred to supra relied on by the counsel for respondent.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:28006

24. However, the facts of the present case are different inasmuch as the revision petitioner is contending that the documents are missed from the Court records for which his rights cannot be put to jeopardy.

Accordingly, following: