Back
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
| 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 app
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
