Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the loss of the document is on account of the petitioner's/applicant's negligence. He deposes that he was carrying the documents in a plastic cover along with him and that he went into the hotel, had breakfast and left the hotel without carrying back the documents along with him and then, when he went back, after some time, he found that his documents were missing. Thus even if the narration is accepted as true, the loss of documents is on account of the petitioner's negligence only and not on account of any intervening factor. It is not the case that someone has stolen the documents or was destroyed by factors over which he had no control. On this short ground alone, the application requires to be rejected. That apart the application came to be resisted by the plaintiff-first respondent herein on several counts.

17. Recently, in H.Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, while dealing with Section 65 of the Evidence Act, this Court opined that though the said provision permits the parties to adduce secondary evidence, yet such a course is subject to a large number of limitations."

He would contend that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court the petitioner has failed to lay any factual foundation before attempting to give secondary evidence. That apart the story by the petitioner about how the document went missing appears highly doubtful, it is his case that he went into the hotel, had breakfast and returned without documents and if that was so, definitely the cleaner employed by the hotel would have immediately cleaned the table as it was 8:00 A.M. in the morning and hardly much crowd can be expected in the hotel and if the cleaner had cleaned the table, he would have definitely noticed the documents that had been left behind. It is not the case of the petitioner that the police have enquired with the staff of the hotel. The alleged police complaint also does not inspire much confidence in this court. If indeed the petitioner had lost such a vital document, he would not have merely sat on his haunches and would have tried to activate his complaint. More so, keeping in view the relevance of the document to his defense, he would have made all efforts to have the case investigated by the police and he cannot merely take advantage of the in-action of the police. The petitioner could have definitely approached this court for an appropriate direction to the police to investigate the matter and interrogate the staff of the hotel if the incident had really occurred as narrated by him. Having failed to take any proactive steps to secure the document and even having failed to carry out the publication, the excuse or the reasons given by the petitioner does not inspire confidence in the court. The trial court has given cogent reasons while arriving at a decision to reject the application. It has rightly concluded that the document produced is not a duplicate of the original but is mere xerox copy and manipulation of the document is highly possible.