Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The admitted facts in the present case are that the original was with one P. Srinibas Rao. Only when conditions of Section prescribed in Section 65 are satisfied, documents can be admitted as secondary evidence. In the instant case clause (a) of Section 65 has not been satisfied. Therefore, the High Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference."

In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the rule which is the most universal in regard to the fact that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced only means that, so long as the higher superior evidence is within the possession of a person or may be reached by a person, that person shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Essentially, secondary evidence is evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence which law requires to be given, when a proper explanation of its evidence is given. Meaning thereby secondary evidence as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to proof existence and execution of the original document. However, if the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party each files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents. Herein above, present case on the basis of record, a finding has been recorded by the prescribed authority that the working of the petitioner has been filed proved on perusal of the records available before the prescribed authority, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he pleaded that the documents were forged and were not present on record of the department, therefore, the same was not admissible under Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard, it is recorded that mere statement of fact that the documents are forged is not sufficient to establish that the documents are forged. The petitioner would have been produced material evidence to establish that the documents produce by the respondent no.2 are not genuine and are procured document. In the present case, the petitioner has yet no point of time produced any material to establish that the documents which have been brought on record have not been issued under the signature of the authorities of the department nor on the basis of report of the Forensic Department. It has ever been established that on the documents filed by the respondent no.2 has been filed under the forged signature of the officer and the officer has never been issued the document produced by the respondent no.2, therefore, the ratio of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. He further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 169 and his submission is that respondent no.2 filed objections on different forum which cannot be termed to be bona fide and the case was ought to have been dismissed on the ground of latches in approaching the competent court of law after the lapse of so many years. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken notice of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as Application of Limitation Act, 1963 in the proceeding wherein in paragraphs 21 and 22 has held as under :-