IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that for a document to be admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, it must meet the specified requirements, including being a certified or true copy of the original document.

1. The appellant herein, which is an Educational Institution, namely Sanatan Dharam Education Society Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. being plaintiff before the learned Single Judge (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) has maintained Civil Suit No. 5 of 2008, under Section 26 read with Order 7, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for recovery of amount of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- alongwith interest and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”) to hand over original FDR No. RDW 551515, Punjab National Bank, Baijnath in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of GGDSD College, Baijnath, which was pledged by the society (plaintiff), lying with defendant No. 5 and declaring that plaintiff alone is entitled to receive the amount of FDR with accrued interest to the exclusion of the defendants.

2. The plaintiff preferred the instant appeal under Clause 10 of the High Court of Delhi Rules, as applicable to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, against the order dated 25.07.2019, passed by learned Single Judge, in OMP No. 245 of 2015, in Civil Suit No. 5 of 2008, whereby application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was filed by the defendants, for proving the resolution dated 28.09.2002, by way of secondary evidence on behalf of the State of H.P. was allowed, with a prayer to allow the appeal with costs and to set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the defendants, being applicants, maintained an application, i.e. OMP No. 245 of 2015, under Section 65 of Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC for proving the resolution dated 28.09.2002 by way of secondary evidence on behalf of the defendants/State of H.P. in the aforesaid civil suit, which was filed by the plaintiff.

4. As per the defendants, at the request of the plaintiff, GGSD College, Baijnath was taken over by the government and the Management Committee, vide its resolution dated 28.09.2002, gave its consent to take over the college and its infrastructure. Despite best efforts of the respondents the original record, including the record of the resolution dated 28.09.2002, could not be traced and ultimately the defendants in their written statement stated that record of the college was untraced/misplaced. It was further pleaded by the defendants that while recording the evidence of Shri Ajay Lakhanpal, Principal, Pt. Sant Ram College Baijnath, photo copy of resolution dated 28.09.2002 was produced, which was passed by the Management Committee of Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam Sabha College, Baijnath. The defendants made another attempt to trace the aforesaid resolution in original when Shri Ajay Lakhanpal produced the photocopy of the said resolution and a three members committee was constituted on 22.06.2015 for the said purpose. As per the defendants, it is unclear whether the original record of resolution dated 28.09.2002 was handed over to the government or not by the management and it seems that the record remained in possession of the management till date. The plaintiff was one of the members in the management, who was opposing the taking over of the college by the government. Despite best efforts, only the photocopy of resolution dated 28.05.2015 was traced and when the defendants examined the witnesses, the aforesaid resolution was marked in the statement of DW Shri Ajay Lakhanpal. The three member committee, after verifying the entire record, submitted its report on 26.06.2015, stating that the file which pertains to taking over of GGSD College was not traceable in the records till date. As per the defendants, resolution dated 28.09.2002 is to be proved in accordance with Evidence Act, by leading secondary evidence only, as the original resolution is misplaced and is not traceable despite the best efforts made by the officials of the defendants. The defendants averred that the suit was filed by the trust and Dr. Shiv Kumar was the t