IMPORTANT POINT
The rejection of a petition for secondary evidence based on a misconception of applicable legal provisions constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting correction under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-XXII, Ranchi in O.S. No. 2285 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for accepting the photocopies of the bank drafts and money receipts by way of secondary evidence in the suit has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove their genuineness as the plaintiff could not produce any certification from the Bank from where items were issued.

Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner

2. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner, has submitted that the reason of rejection of the petition dated 20.12.2022 which has been filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is absolutely improper reason being that the said petition has been rejected on the ground of no certification from the bank made available in the documents (bank drafts and the money receipts).

3. It has been contended that the petition dated 20.12.2022 was not filed under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and since cannot be filed under the aforesaid provision in view the fact that the electronic goods is not a subject-matter, rather the document has been sought to be made acceptable by treating it as secondary evidence on account of availability of the conditions stipulated under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, but instead of giving consideration of the legal issue as per the provision of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the order has been passed presuming the petition filed under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, hence, the impugned order suffers from error and as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties

4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the petition dated 20.12.2022 can well be responded wherein it has been stated that the said documents, which are being sought to be accepted as secondary evidence, are only the photocopies as also in some places written in hand-written scripts, hence, serious objection was made to the said petition. It has been contended that by considering the said objection, the impugned order has been passed and hence, the impugned order suffers from no error.

Analysis

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading made in the petition dated 20.12.2022 as also the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order. This Court has taken into consideration the petition filed basis upon which the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 has been passed, wherein the prayer has been made to grant leave to the plaintiff to tender photocopies of four demand drafts bearing Nos. 070999, 256526, 256564 and 256565 issued by the State Bank of India, Pandra Branch, Ranchi drawn in favour of Maruti Udyog Ltd payable at Service Branch, New Delhi and two money receipts. The reason has been assigned therein that the original money receipt Nos. 028 and 029, which have been lost by the conducting counsel but the photocopies of the same have been retained which are being sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff.

6. The response to the said petition has also been filed wherein it has been stated that the documents are photocopies of partly printed and partly hand-written documents, hence, cannot be allowed to be tender as secondary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

7. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the rival submissions/grounds has rejected the petition dated 20.12.2022 by passing the impugned order.

8. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties needs to refer herein the provisions of Section 65 and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which rea