For secondary evidence to be admissible, it must be a true and full reproduction of the original document, and the person giving oral accounts of the documents must establish that those documents are the originals.

( 1 ) MR. Manohar, P. W,1 hasbeen examined by Sri Udaya Holla, counsel appearing for him. During the course of examination-in-Chief the witness P. W. 1 state thai he had taken inspection of certain documents which were made available to him for inspection by the respondent-Company, in pursuance of the order of this Court. He look notes of certain documents during the course of inspection of these documents-The documents which were given to him for inspection have been listed as per the list given to him. Some of those documents which were given to him for inspection were not produced into the Court despite bis making a request by filing an application in the Court. He has stated all these facts in his examination-in-chief and he further stated that he has made 'notes' of the contents of the documents which he wants to produce and mark it as document to prove the contents of those documents which have been inspected by him.

( 2 ) THIS was objected by Mr. S. G. Sundaraswamy, senior counsel appearing forthe respondent-Company.

( 3 ) THE examination-in-chief of P. W. V was deferred and the matter was heard on the question whether the notes of the documents prepared by the person who bad seen the document could be produced and marked as a proof of the contents of documents by way of secondary evidence, since the. original documents are not produced by the opposite party in whose possession and power they are said to be.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for P. W. 1 has drawn my attention to the provisionof Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, and argued that provisions of Section 63 enables to give secondary evidence by giving oral accounts of contents of a documents given by a person who has himself seen it. He further argued that the contents of private document may be proved by secondary evidence by any witness who has, in tact, seen and read them. He has also argued relying on the provision of section 63 (3) of Evidence Act that the 'notes' taken by P. W. 1 is copies made from as well as compared with the original, which canbe produced and marked as exhibit to prove the contents of unproduced documents by way of secondary evidence. Elaborating his arguments, he relied on the passage contained in Sengupta on evidence at page 556, which reads as follows:"an entry in a deed-writer's register which contains the essential particulars contained in the document itself and is also signed or thumb-marked by the person executing the document, amounts to a copy and is admissible in evidence. "the witness has taken inspection of documents as per the list of documents and he bad seen and read it He has taken notes from the documents which he had seen and read as such that can be produced and marked to prove the contents of unproduced documents.

( 5 ) MR. Sundaraswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Company has controverted the submission made by Mr. Udaya Holla and submitted that firstly there is no evidence that the documents given for inspection were all originals and the notes or copies made by the person (P. W. 1) were from the original. Nexlly, he contended referring to Sections 22 and 59 of the Evidence Act, that the contents of the documents are provable by the production of the documents itself except where the secondary evidence is admissible, and all facts except the contents of documents could be proved by oral evidence. It is further argued by Mr. Sundaraswamy that the result of these sections taken with Section 65 (b) is that the contents of the documents may be proved by written admission against whom it is to be used, but cannot be proved by oral admission, much less by production of notes of tbedocumentstakenby the person who had read and seen under Section 63 (5) of the act Elaborating his arguments, he has referred to the Commentary on Section 63 of the Evidence Act by C. D. Field's Law of Evidence, Vol. III, page 2721 which read that "the definition of secondary evidence contained in