Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.S. Subramani
Arulsingamani and another
Versus
S. Vaiguntha Rajan and another
C.R.P. No. 2920 of 1999 and C.M.P. No. 16661 of 1999
Decided On : 11-11-1999
EVIDENCE ACT - ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS - COPY OF A COPY - REJECTION OF DOCUMENT - COURT'S DUTY TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE - OBJECTION TO ADMISSIBILITY CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE - DOCUMENT INADMISSIBLE IN LAW CANNOT BE ADMITTED BY CONSENT.
Fact of the Case:
Defendants in a defamation suit challenged the admissibility of a document (Ex.A.1) that was marked through the plaintiff without objection. The document was a copy of a copy of a letter allegedly sent by the defendants to the Secretary, Industries Department, Madras, which contained defamatory statements about the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Ex.A.1 was inadmissible in evidence because it was neither a primary nor a secondary evidence under the Evidence Act. The court further held that the defendants were not precluded from challenging the admissibility of Ex.A.1 at a later stage, even though they had not objected to its marking at the time it was introduced into evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether Ex.A.1 was admissible in evidence as primary or secondary evidence under the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the defendants were precluded from challenging the admissibility of Ex.A.1 at a later stage, despite not objecting to its marking at the time it was introduced into evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Ex.A.1 was not admissible in evidence as primary evidence because it was not the original document. The court also held that Ex.A.1 was not admissible as secondary evidence because it was not a copy of a copy that had been compared with the original. 2. The court held that the defendants were not precluded from challenging the admissibility of Ex.A.1 at a later stage, despite not objecting to its marking at the time it was introduced into evidence. The court relied on the principle that a document that is inadmissible in law cannot be admitted by consent.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's order admitting Ex.A.1 into evidence and allowed the revision petition. The court also directed the respondents to produce either the original document or secondary evidence in its place.
1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.8966 of 1996 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai are the revision petitioners herein.
2. Suit filed by plaintiffs was one for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,00,500 with interest on the allegation that petitioners herein have caused publication defaming them by sending a letter dated 15. 1992 addressed to Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Madras. Copy of the said letter was sent to Deputy Director of Mines, Tirunelveli who made enquiries with plaintiffs. In para 15 of the plaint plaintiffs have said that defendants have published this petition by sending the same to the Secretary, Industries Department, Madras. The same was enquired by the Deputy Director of Mines. Tirunelveli regarding the allegations in the said petition. The plaintiff was shown the copy of the said petition sent by the defendants and the plaintiff had taken a copy of it. The plaintiff had to answer the allegation."
3. Plaintiff has taken a copy of the letter from the copy which was shown to him by the Deputy Director of Mines, Tirunelveli and the same was marked through plaintiff when he was examined. At the time when the document was marked, no objection was raised. Thereafter, evidence of plaintiff was closed and defendants evidence was also mostly completed. At that time, defendants filed I.A.SR.No. 17845 of 1999 to reject the document Ex.A.1 as inadmissible in evidence under Order 13 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, lower court without numbering the same rejected it.
4. When revision was filed, plaintiff also entered appearance by filing caveat and respondent was also directed to file counter. Pursuant to the same, respondent filed detailed counter affidavit supporting the order of lower court.
5. Even though the application is unnumbered before lower court both counsel before this court argued the matter on merits and therefore I am passing this order on the admissibility of the document itself in this revision petition.
6. Only question that requires consideration in this revision is whether petitioners herein are precluded from taking a contention that Ex.A1 was improperly marked and contend that the document is liable to be rejected.
7. Themain submission made by learned counsel for petitioners was that Ex.A.1 is admittedly a copy taken from the copy of the document and the same cannot be marked under Evidence Act. It is submitted under Evidence Act, only piece of evidence that are admissible are primary evidence and secondary evidence. Primary evidence is production of original document itself and secondary evidence includes certain types of documents and Ex.A.1 will not come within those provisions of Evidence Act. It is argued that if Ex.A.1 do not come within either primary evidence or secondary evidence, the same cannot be admitted and that does not depend on taking on objection at the time when it is marked. It is the duty of the Court itself to sue whether the document is admissible under law. It is further argued that the objection is not regarding procedure regarding proof but regarding admissibility of the document itself.
8. As against the said contention, learned counsel for respondent submitted that when no objection was raised at the time of marking the document and entire evidence also coming to close petitioners will not be entitled to challenge the same at the fag end of the trial. Learned counsel also brought to my notice sequence of events including the contentions taken in the written statement.
9. I heard the learned counsel on both sides.
10. Section 62 and 63 of Evidence Act deal with primary evidence and secondary evidence. It is admitted that it is not a primary evidence, naturally plaintiffs will have to come only under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. On going by the averments in the plaint and by the deposition of PW1. I do not find that the ingredients under Section 63 is also satisfied in this case. This is what
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
