Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
A.Palayam (deceased), 1.P.Anushiya W/O. Late A.Palayam, P.Selvam S/o Late A.Palayam, P.Murugan S/o Late A.Palayam, P.Kutty S/o Late A.Palayam, P.Suresh S/o Late A.Palayam – Appellant
Versus
Indirani D/o. Late Arumugam, A.Natarajan S/o Late Arumugam, A.Allimuthu S/O. Late Arumugam, A.Krishnamurthy S/O. Late Arumugam, M.Chandra W/O. Late A.Murugesan, Manikandan S/O. Late A.Murugesan, Suganya D/O. Late A.Murugesan, Divya D/O. Late A.Murugesan – Respondent
CRP No. 5900 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Deepak
For the Respondents: Mr.G.Krishnamurthy for.S.V.S.Ilamvazhuthi

A party must comply with notice requirements under Order VII Rule 14(2) of the CPC when seeking to present secondary evidence.

Headnote:This Civil Revision Petition challenges the dismissal of the plaintiffs' application under Section 60 of the BSA read with Order VII Rule 14(2) of the CPC to mark xerox copies of documents as secondary evidence due to non-compliance with notice requirements. The court highlighted the procedural necessity of notifying the defendants for presenting original documents. The plaintiff's request for permission to use copies was supported by the claim that originals were in defendants' possession. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with directions for the notice and production of documents.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the revision petition and application for secondary evidence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the necessity of original documents and notice compliance. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court observations on the requirement for notice and document production. (Para 5)

ORDER

Challenging the dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiffs to mark the xerox copy of the documents as secondary evidence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.909 of 2017 has been filed by the first plaintiff for partition and for permanent injunction against the respondents. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and the his wife and sons have been impleaded in the suit. When the suit was posted for trial, the plaintiffs came to know that out of four documents filed along with the plaint, two documents are xerox copies and the originals of the documents are with the respondents and hence, they had filed the application in I.A.No.05 of 2025 under section 60 of BSA read with Order VII Rule 14[2] of CPC to permit the petitioners to mark the xerox copy of the document Nos.2 and 3 as secondary evidence. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court holding that the petitioners have not given notice to the respondents/defendants to cause production of the document as required under law. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that original allotment order as well as the death certificate of the Arumugam are in the hands of the defendants and the petitioners were having only xerox copy and to mark those xerox copies during trial, they want to compare the same with original. Since the documents have not been produced by the defendants, they are seeking permission of the Court to mark the xerox copy of the documents as secondary evidence. Without appreciating the same, the trial Court had dismissed the application.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had raised objections stating that the original allotment order and the death certificate of the said Arumugam is with him and the petitioners have not followed the provisions as required under Order 11 Rule 14 [2] of CPC for causing production of the original documents by giving appropriate notice. He further submits that if the petitioners give appropriate notice to cause production of the documents, he is ready to cause production of the same.

5. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the petitioners are directed to give appropriate notice to the third respondent/third defendant and on such notice, the third respondent/third defendant is directed to the produce the original allotment order and death certificate of the said Arumugham before the trial Court and on filing of the documents, the trial Court shall proceed as per law.

6, With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document