The court ruled that secondary evidence can be admissible under the CPC when original documents are unavailable, and trial courts must provide cogent reasoning for rejecting such applications.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

This petition is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2025 passed on IA.No.16 in O.S.No.2914/2017 by XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. In the suit filed in the year 2017, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to produce certain documents in order to prove his case. The documents sought to be produced are as under:

"1. Notarised copy of letter dated 15-10-2024 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District to Sri.Vijaya Kumar Reddy.

2. Notarised 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. Notarised 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 file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act.

4. Notarised 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. Notarised 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."

4. In the affidavit annexed to the application seeking production of these documents, the plaintiff has narrated the fact at paras-6 7 and 10 as to why he produces the documents.

5. It is the statement of learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff that he seeks to produce these documents since he made an application under RTI Act before the Deputy Commissioner for certified copy of the document in (LRF) V.P.C.No.1/1996-97, which includes the survey sketch dated 05.06.1990 relied upon by one A.Prahalad Rao locating property in Sy.No.4 on Western side. It is also stated in the affidavit that since there is no original documents in the said file, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru refused to grant certified copies and on the other hand issued photostat copies of the same under the RTI Act. It is also stated that the said documents is annexed to the application are very much relevant to show the identity and location of the property belonging to defendant No.3, which is on the Western side of Sy.No.4 and not on the Eastern side as claimed by defendant No.3.

6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for plaintiff that the documents are obtained under RTI Act by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner and there was no original documents available with the petitioner or respondent No.3 and the documents secured by the plaintiff are now sought to be produced. It is clearly stated as they are the "xerox copies" and the said application has been rejected by the trial Judge without proper application of mind. The documents sought to be produced cannot be refused by the trial Court and in order to meet the ends of justice, when there is no documents available, the plaintiff seeks to produce the secondary evidence, the same can be accepted by the trial Court. However, the trial Court has hypothetically rejected the application. Hence, the impugned order is erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be set-aside and the plaintiff be permitted to produce the document.

7. Per contra, learn