IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.12.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP(PD).No.2630 of 2022 and CMP.Nos.13521 and 13523 of 2022 C.M.Dhananjayan ...Petitioner Vs.

Sri Kalidasa Educational Trust (Registered)

Represented by its Trustee Mr.G.Veerabhadraiah & Mr.H.M.Mariappan No.519 & 520, Bommandapally Circle, Haritha Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. ..Respondent PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.186 of 2004 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Hosur. For Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Ravindran For Respondent : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur, in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.186 of 2004.

2. Before the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 praying to permit him to produce the secondary evidence more particularly with regard to document Nos. 5 and 19 which are not available in the Court. The said application was strongly objected by the defendant stating that the secondary evidence cannot be marked without producing the original documents and also not permissible to receive the Xerox copies of the documents. On considering both sides, the trial Judge had allowed the said application. Challenging the same, the defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Admittedly, the suit was originally filed before the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri and the same was made over to the 1st Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri on 23.02.2006. Thereafter the case has been transferred to the Additional District Judge, Hosur. Further, when the case was taken up for trial, it was found that two minute books shown as filed into Court in I.A.No.31 of 2013 are not available. The index sheet of the papers received from the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri does not indicate the said Minute Books or extract. Therefore, the trial Court of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri was addressed for documents. Even after sufficient period, no such further documents were received from the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri. Since, the case is of the year 2004 and already directed by this Court as per order in CRP.Nos.1665 and 1666 of 2013 dated 20.12.2016 . Therefore, the Additional District Court, Hosur has called for steps for reconstrcution. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the petition to receive documents as secondary evidence.

5. The authority relied by the learned counsel for the respondent Judgement in Vijay vs Union of Inida & Ors (2023 INSC 1030) Para 31 and 31 are extracted hereunder:-

''31.Primary and Secondary Evidence stands explained by a Constitutional Bench of this Court in Cement Corpn, of India Ltd. V. Purya, 14 (5-Judge Bench) as the former being evidence that the law requires to be given first, the latter being evidence that may be given in the absence of that original evidence when a proper explanation of its absence has been given. The terms ''primary and secondary evidence'' apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which such contents, when proved, may be received.

32. Section 63 of the Evidence Act gives an exhaustive definition declaring that secondary evidence ''means and includes'' the five kinds of evidence mentioned therein. Section 65 of the Evidence Act allows secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition, or contents of documents under the circumstances therein mentioned. It provides for the circumstances in which secondary evidence can be used when the original document is unavailable or inaccessible. It is imperative to adhere to the princip