Documents presented as secondary evidence must satisfy foundational requirements and cannot be admitted without proper explanation for the non-production of originals.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

W.P.Nos.36132/2025 and 36486/2025 arises out of O.S.No.2914/2017 while W.P.Nos.36181/2025 and 36350/2025 arise out of O.S.No.2918/2017. Both the suits having been filed by the common petitioner and the only contesting respondents in the present petitions and on the instant interlocutory applications is respondent No.3-defendant No.3, Sri. Sathish Naidu. Hence, notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with.

2. Since common questions of facts and law arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are taken up together for consideration.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the sole petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suits in O.S.No.2914/2017 and O.S.No.2918/2017 for declaration, possession, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit is being contested by the defendants including respondent-defendant No.3 in both the suits, at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner-plaintiff filed application I.A.No.16 under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC for permission to produce the following five documents, which are as under:

“1. Notarized copy of Letter dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District to the Plaintiff together with copies of documents.

2. Notarized copy of petition in (LRF) V.P.C.No.1/96-97 dated 02.08.1996 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, filed by A. Prahalad Rao, issued under R.T.I. Act.

3. Notarized copy of List of Documents dated 02.08.1996 filed by the Petitioner A. Prahalad Rao in case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the filed of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act.

4. Notarized copy of sketch dated 05.06.1990 produced by the Petitioner in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the filed of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act.

5. Notarized copy of affidavit dated 18.06.1996 filed by the Respondent in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act.”

5. For the purpose of enabling the petitioner-plaintiff to mark the said documents in evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff has have also filed two more applications under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Evidence Act”) to admit the aforesaid documents as secondary evidence and I.A.No.18 for reopening the case for further chief examination of PW.1. By the impugned common order, the Trial Court rejected all the three applications i.e., I.A.Nos.16 to 18 filed by the petitioners in both the suits.

6. The petitioner challenged rejection of I.A.No.16 in W.P.No.33580/2025, which was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025, which reads as under:

“i) This writ petition is allowed;

ii) The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed on IA.No.16 in O.S.No.2918/2017 by XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bnegaluru, is hereby set-aside and consequently, IA.No.16/2025 is allowed;

iii) The plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents as sought. However, it is made clear that mere production of documents would not be proof or evidence of the documents.”

7. The rejection of I.A.Nos.17 and 18 in both the aforesaid suits are the subject matter of the present petitions in as much as I.A.No.18 in O.