A photocopy of a document is inadmissible as secondary evidence if the original document is not duly stamped, per the Indian Stamp Act.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner filed the Civil Revision Petition seeking the prayer as under :

“….pleased to set aside the order in I.A.No.147 of 2024 in O. S No. 14 of 2010 dated 27.08.2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Thorrur by allowing the Petition and may further be pleased to pass …”

3. Petitioner in the present case is the plaintiff in Suit O.S.No. 14 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur. The Petitioner/ plaintiff herein filed I .A.No. 147 of 2024 in O.S.No. 14 of 2010 seeking prayer as under:-

“…to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence by producing a copy of the simple Sale Deed, dated 20.04.1994 and consider the same by marking on his behalf and may further be pleased to pass such other order or orders…”

4. The said I .A.No. 147 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2010, dated 27.08.2024 was dismissed observing in its conclusion as under:-

“As per Sec. 2(14) of Indian Stamp Act, the document in question being a copy and thus not an instrument within the meaning of Sec. 2(14) and when document is required to be stamped u/ s. 35 of Indian Stamp Act, it cannot be allow ed to be introduced in evidence when it is not duly stamped and xerox copy of such document need not be stamped and cannot be acted RT upon in view of bar contained in Sec. 35 of Indian Stamp Act, if xerox copies of document permitted, it would certainly circumvent mandatory provisions of Sec.35 of Indian Stamp Act. The photocopy of the document, original of which is lost, cannot be admitted in evidence and that such a document can neither be impounded nor accepted in secondary evidence. I n these circumstances this Court is not inclined to allow this petition.”

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintiff placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the petitioner’s case.

a) The judgment of the Patna High Court in Sribhagw an Singh and Others Vs. Rambasi Kuer and Other, dated 04.09.1956 reported in AI R 1957 PATNA 157

b) The judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hari Waman Rao and Others Vs. Pappula Narsimulu, dated 10.02.1977 reported in AI R 1977 ANDHRA PRADESH 371

C) The judgment of the Telangana High Court in Kasarla Anantha Laxmi Vs. U.Bhoom Reddy and Others, dated 28.01.2019 in Civil Revision Petitin Nos. 6085 of 2018, 6091 of 2018.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the respondents case.

a) The judgment of the Apex Court in Hariom Agrawal Vs.Prakash Chand Malviya, dated 18.10.2007 reported in 2007 (7) Supreme 402 ( para Nos. 8 and 10)

b) The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Obelisetty Ramanadham Vs. Obelisetty Bhaskar Rao, dated 13.11.2007 reported in 2008 2 ALD 278( Para No.7)

c) The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Akkam Laxmi Vs. Thosha Bhoomaiah, dated 06.28.2002 reported in 2002 (4) ALD 808 (Para Nos.8 & 9)

d) The judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in S.S.Toor Vs. Gurleen Kaur & Ors., dated 05.08.2014 reported in 2014 Law Herald 3613 (Para No.11)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

7. The record indicates the pleas put-forth by the petitioner/ plaintiff and the respondent No.3 before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur in I.A.No.147 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2010 as under:-

7. It is the contention of the Petitioner/Plaintiff that the suit was filed For Declaration and Title and for