The main legal point established in the judgment is the pre-condition of proving the loss or unavailability of the original document for the admissibility of secondary evidence, as provided under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant revision petition has been filed being aggrieved against the order dated 11.2.2020 as passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Bhagapurana, allowing the respondent to lead secondary evidence.

2. In brief, the facts are that a suit for recovery of 7,17, 86,538/- was filed by the petitioner against the respondent on the ground that a huge loss has been caused the petitioner Corporation by the misconduct and negligence on the part of the respondent herein. Departmental proceedings were held and the respondent herein was eventually dismissed from service. His appeal against the dismissal order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority on 17.11.2015. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated in the form of a suit for recovery. The defendant-respondent herein submitted his written statement contending that his order of dismissal was pending before the High Court, while disputing and denying the averments made out in the plaint. The petitioner herein led evidence and thereafter the respondent herein summoned FCI witnesses along with the relevant record. DW 3 Praveen Kumar appeared on 02.12.2019 and stated that he had only brought part of the summoned record i.e the attested copy of D.O. No Q.C. 7/Rice Inspection/Genl./2004-2005 dated 20.12.2004/1523. The case was deferred for want of the original record. He appeared before the Additional Civil Judge on 13.01.2020 stating that the original letter D.O. No Q.C.7/Rice Inspection/General/2004-2005 dated 20.12.2004 is not available on the record and only a photocopy of the said letter is available which he produced in court. DW.5 Satish Kumar, Depot Manager FCI Moga, appeared on 13.01.2020 and stated that the summoned record i.e letter dated 11.01.2013 written by Manager, Depot FCI Nirmal Singh to Area Manager FCI, Moga in respect of office order No. E (10) hiring/PSW C/Genl./Moga/2007/5256 dated 5/7.12.2012 is not available in the office record and only the photo copy is available.

3. Since the original letters/office orders were not available on the summoned record, an application was preferred on 13.1.2020 by the respondent to lead secondary evidence to prove letter dated 11.01.2013 bearing No. E (10) hiring/PSWC/Genl. Moga/2007/5256 dated 5/7/12.2012 and D.O. No Q.C. 7/Rice Inspection/Genl./2004-2005 dated 20.12.2004/1523. The application was contested on ground that the application does not fulfil the precondition as laid down in Section 65 (a) to 65 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was argued that the existence of the original document of which secondary evidence is sought, has not been proved and an attested document cannot be considered. The documents of which secondary evidence is sought are not certified copies, as such secondary evidence cannot be permitted. It is argued that FCI has not stated as to how the original document has been lost or destroyed. On hearing the arguments, the trial court allowed the application to adduce secondary evidence. Hence the instant revision petition.

4. Mr. Parambir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would contend that the impugned order is not sustainable since the ingredients as specified in Section 65 (a) to 65 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not satisfied. It is argued that before secondary evidence can be permitted, the existence of the original is to be proved, while arguing that secondary evidence can be allowed of certified copies, which is not so in the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgements rendered in H. Siddiqui (dead) by L.Rs Vs A. Ramalingam, (2011) AIR SC 1492 , U Sree Vs. U. Srinivas, (2013) AIR SC 415 , Benga Behera and another Vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others, (2007) 9 SCC 728 , Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) AIR SC 1721 , amongst others.

5. Per contra, Mr. Amaninder Preet, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the evidence has already been led pur