COMMON ORDER:

Civil revision petition No.3269 of 2011 has been filed by the revision petitioners who are defendants in the Court below questioning the order in I.A.No.308 of 2011 in O.S.No.3411 of 2008, dated 06.07.2011 passed by the learned III Junior Civil Judge in refusing to bring on record Xerox copy of plan to be marked by confronting to PW-1. The said prayer was refused on the ground that the Court had declined the prayer of the petitioner during the cross examination of PW-1 on the ground that photo copies of the document cannot be marked.

2. Civil revision petition No.3275 of 2011 has been filed by the revision petitioners who are defendants in the Court below questioning the order in I.A.No.362 of 2011 in O.S.No.3411 of 2008, dated 06.07.2011 passed by the learned III Junior Civil Judge in dismissing the recall application for the purpose of cross examination of PW-1. It is seen that the learned Magistrate found since the purpose for recalling the witness is photo copy to be marked and the said prayer was not permitted, the application to recall witness has no bearing and accordingly dismissed the petition.

3. Having gone through the cross examination of PW-1, dated 29.12.2010, PW-1 admitted the photo copy of the plan as the plan submitted in the regularization scheme. However, the Court refused to mark the said document though admitted by PW-1 on the ground that it is a photo copy.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in both the cases submitted that once the witness had accepted the document to be photo copy of the original, trial Court had committed an error in refusing to mark the said document and bring it on record as evidence.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act secondary evidence should be permitted only in the event of filing certified copies of public document. In the present case, when it is admitted that the original was available and filed along with application and secondly, it is public document and when photo copy/certified copy can be secured, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in refusing to bring the photo copy of the plan on record though admitted by PW-1.

6. Learned counsel further submits that for the said reason of not filing of certified copy of the public document, the orders passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, needs no interference.

7. The plan which is photo copy was confronted to PW-1 during the cross examination, the witness had admitted the said document. In the background of the witness admitting the photo copy to be true of the original, the learned Magistrate ought to have permitted to place it on record and he should have marked the said document.

8. Further, during the course of trial if any documents are sought to be brought on record, in the normal course, if there is any objection by the other side, the said document can be marked subject to objection and the correctness or otherwise of the document can be decided by the Courts at the stage of final disposal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9. In the present case, since the witness himself has admitted that the photo copy that was confronted to him to be the photo copy of the original, the Court ought to have marked the said document.

10. With the said observations, both the civil revision petitions are disposed off directing PW-1 to be recalled exclusively for the purpose of marking the photo copy of the said plan. Cross- examination on any other issue apart from copy of the plan, cannot be permitted.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________ K.SURENDER, J Date:10.06.2024 VRKS