COMMON JUDGMENT

R.SUBBIAH, J These Original Side Appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 11.08.2018 passed in Application Nos.6383 and 6384 of 2017 in C.S.No.220 of 2009, whereby, the learned Single Judge had dismissed both the applications filed by the appellant/plaintiff, one in Application No.6384 of 2017 in C.S.No.220 of 2009, for recalling P.W.1 and to mark xerox copies of four documents, and another one, in Application No.6383 of 2017 in C.S.No.220 of 2009, to permit the applicant to file the affidavit of the applicant's Accounts Manager and Systems-in-charge under Section 65-

B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit, as plaintiff (appellant herein) and defendants (respondents herein).

3. Brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in these appeals are as follows:

(a) The appellant/plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit bearing C.S.No.220 of 2009 as against the respondents/defendants to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,15,37,054/- being the principal amount of Rs.1,73,85,878/- payable by the defendants and interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from 01.07.2007 till 31.01.2009, amounting to Rs.41,51,176/-, together with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment.

(b) The defendants, after entering appearance, have filed their written statement in the month of January 2010. Thereafter, issues were framed on 27.06.2014. After framing of issues, the Court directed both sides to file affidavit of documents and give the list of witnesses within a period of three weeks and further two weeks' time was given for inspection of documents.

(c) The appellant/plaintiff filed affidavit of documents on 24.07.2014.

Thereafter, the matter was posted before the learned Additional Master No.IV, High Court of Madras, for recording evidence. The trial commenced in the month of December 2016. Mr.Sunil Kapoor, Manager of the plaintiff-Company filed proof affidavit. On 05.12.2016, chief examination of P.W.1 was recorded and Exs.P-1 to P-19 were marked. Again, on 08.12.2016, chief examination of P.W.1 continued and exhibits upto Ex.P-24 were marked. Thereafter, the matter was posted for cross examination of P.W.1.

(d) At this juncture, the respondents/defendants had filed application in A.No.1243 of 2017 to eschew Exs.P-2, 6, 7, 10, 23, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 marked on the side of the plaintiff. In the affidavit filed in support of Application in A.No.1243 of 2017, it is stated by the defendants that these documents were erroneously marked in the suit and the said documents could be classified as (i) photocopies of the documents (secondary evidence), (ii) incomplete documents or illegible and (iii) e.mail correspondences not falling under the above said categories.

(e) The said application was opposed by the appellant/plaintiff by filing counter affidavit(s).

(f) The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on either side had partly allowed the said application in A.No.1243 of 2017 on 30.06.2017. The concluding portion of the order reads as follows:

"13. In fine, the application is partly allowed and the documents marked as Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P23, Ex.P10 Series (xiv) and Ex.P23 are ordered to be eschewed. With respect to other documents, Ex.P2, Ex.P5 series, Ex.P8 series (ii, iii, iv, vi, viii, ix), Ex.P9 series (i, ii, iii), Ex.P10 series (xiv), Ex.P11 series (v, vi, viii, xv) and Ex.P12 the learned Additional Master is directed to verify and substitute the same."

(g) The reason for ordering eschewing the above exhibits, namely Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P23, Ex.P10 Series (xiv) and Ex.P23, by the learned Single Judge, was that, without an application to receive the secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the photocopies of the documents cannot be marked.

(h) Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff filed ap