Photocopies can be admissible as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act if they meet specific criteria, and a money lender's license is not required for transactions exceeding Rs. 3,000 made through negotiable instruments, as these do not constitute a 'loan' under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Two substantial questions of law that arise in this second appeal are;

(a) Whether the photostat copy (Xerox copy) compared with the original, admissible as secondary evidence, if other conditions required for the production of secondary evidence are met?

(b) Whether Sec. 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, mandates the production of money lender's licence, to maintain a suit to recover the money lent, by a money lender, if the amount lent is more than rupees three thousand and lent through a negotiable instrument, other than the promissory note?

2. Ratnavarma Padival the plaintiff, claimed that on 19/3/1999, he lent, the defendant Rathnavarma Ajri, Rs.3.00 lakhs through a cheque, and the defendant's cheque dtd. 30/3/1999, issued towards repayment of the loan is dishonoured.

3. The defendant denied the alleged loan transaction. His defence is that the plaintiff misused the blank cheques issued by the defendant, in his long-standing business relationship with the plaintiff, as the defendant refused to sell the shares of the Karnataka theatre, which the plaintiff insisted.

4. The suit filed to recover the alleged loan is decreed. The trial court awarded interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.3, 00, 000.00 as against the claim of 18% p.a.

5. The defendant succeeded in the first appeal, consequently, the suit is dismissed on two grounds namely;

(a) The loan transaction is not proved,

(b) Suit is not maintainable, as the plaintiff did not produce the money lender's licence.

6. This second appeal by the plaintiff challenging the divergent findings was admitted on 16/7/2015 to answer the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that the statutory presumption under Sec. 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the defendants have rebutted the said presumption by tendering rebuttable evidence?

7. This case was heard on merits and reserved for judgment on 8/8/2013. Since this Court felt two more substantial questions of law, referred to in the beginning, are to be framed, the case was listed on 16/8/2023 to frame the substantial questions of law referred to above. Both sides were heard on additional substantial questions of law as well.

8. The appellant, before this Court filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('Code' for short) seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence (notarized Xerox copies) of the passbook and chequebook of his bank account to prove the suit transaction.

9. The respondents opposed the application on three grounds, namely, the documents sought to be produced are not secondary evidence, grounds are not made out to admit secondary evidence, and there is an inordinate delay in producing the documents.

10. This Court heard the application along with the merits of the appeal. This Court vide order dtd. 13/12/2022, overruled the objection on the ground of the delay in producing the documents, and allowed the production of additional documents. Objections as to its proof and admissibility were kept open. The application was remitted to the trial Court to record evidence and to return the finding on the admissibility and proof of the secondary evidence.

11. The trial Court after recording the evidence held that the documents are inadmissible.

12. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ganapati Hegde for the appellant raised the following contentions:

(a) The trial Court erred in rejecting the secondary evidence, namely, the notarized Xerox copies of the passbook and the counter foil of the checkbook, despite meeting the requirements for admitting the secondary evidence.

(b) The defendant failed to rebut the presumption available under Ss. 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act', for brevity)

(c) The defence in the written statement that the plaintiff managed to create entries in the defendant's bank accounts, itself would demonstrate that the