( 1 ) THE petitioners are the defendants in o. S. No. 698 of 2001 on the file of the iii Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad. The respondent filed it for the relief of eviction from the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the respondent filed a xerox copy of the notice said to have been issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial of the suit commenced. The respondent sought to mark the copy of the notice said to have been served upon the petitioners. The petitioners raised an objection as to the admissibility of such document. Thereupon, the respondent filed I. A. No. 1695 of 2004, under Section 65 of the Evidence Act (for short the Act ) and sought permission of the trial Court to receive the copy of the notice, as secondary evidence. It was also pleaded that he proposes to examine the learned advocate, who issued the original of that notice, to the petitioners. The application was resisted by the petitioners on several grounds. Through its order, dated 2-3-2005, the trial Court allowed the I. A. Hence, this revision.

( 2 ) SRI Rupendra Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent did not take the necessary preparatory steps provided for under section 65 of the Act, before he sought permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence. He submits that admittedly the document was a xerox copy and unless the necessary ingredients of Section 65 and 66 of the Act were complied with, permission ought not to have been granted by the trial court.

( 3 ) SRI D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that by its very nature, the office copy of a notice sent by an advocate is not required to be in a particular form and such a copy cannot be subjected to the same requirements, as the secondary evidence of other documents, is done. According to him, office copy of a notice can be in manuscript or photostat and that it is required to be signed by the counsel or the party.

( 4 ) THE controversy in this C. R. P. , is about grant of permission to the respondent to lead secondary evidence, in relation to a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. The respondent pleaded that the notice was sent to the petitioners herein. In their written statement, the petitioners flatly denied the receipt of notice. Therefore, heavy burden is upon the respondent to prove that such notice has in fact been served on the petitioners. That however is a different aspect.

( 5 ) THE respondent pleaded that he got the quit notice issued through another advocate and that the office copy of that notice handed over to him, was filed into the Court. The evidence Act mandates that the documentary evidence has to be adduced, in its original form. Permission, is accorded to lead secondary evidence in exceptional cases, after ensuring that the steps provided for under Sections 65 and 66 of the Act are complied with. In the context of marking of an office copy of a notice, somewhat different connotations arise. The reason is that except for the text, the office copy cannot be said to be original by itself, of the notice. The original of the notice is supposed to be with the recipient thereof. It is only when factum of service of notice is proved that the question as to the content of the notice becomes relevant. In such an event, the occasion to compare the text of the office copy, with the one received by the other party, arises.

( 6 ) THE person issuing the notice, may some times ensure that the copy retained by him possesses all the characteristics of the one which is sent to the other party. It is not uncommon that only rough and unsigned copy, which conforms to the text of the notice, is preserved. Authenticity of such copy does not depend on the signature of the sender or his counsel. If the proof of the service is established, the party objecting to the text can certainly confront the sender as to the accuracy and requirements in comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document