The court clarified that once the existence of documents is admitted, secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service.

3. The above petition seeks inter alia for following reliefs:

(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court, the impugned order dated 3/05/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, A-Court, Margao at Exh.'O' to the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner's application dated 13/08/2009 at Exh.'M' preferred under the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act , be allowed and the Respondent No.3 be directed to produce the originals of the four documents, namely, (1) Power of Attorney dated 8/02/1997 (2) Certificate of registration of Partnership dated 16/02/2006, (3) Agreement for Sale dated 21/07/1995 and (4) Deed of Partnership dated 12/08/1995, as prayed in the said application.

4. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Judge has dismissed the application only on the specious consideration that no proper notice was issued to the respondent no.3 to produce such documents. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to consider that all the documents which the petitioner desires to produce secondary evidence have been duly admitted by the respondent no.3 in the pleadings. The learned Counsel has further taken me to paras 3,6 & 9 of the plaint wherein there is a specific reference to the said document and thereafter to the written statement of the respondent no.3 to point out that the existence of such document was not disputed by the respondent. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event the secondary evidence could have been allowed within the provision of Section 65 (b) of the Evidence Act.

5. On the other hand, Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the above petition. The learned Counsel pointed out that there was no appropriate notice as contemplated under Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act issued by the petitioner and, as such, the learned Judge was justified to pass the impugned order. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the registration certificate sought to be produced has not been relied upon by the petitioner. The learned Counsel however does not dispute that the documents at serial no.3 & 4 have also been relied upon by the petitioner and that on the basis of the pleadings of the respondent there was no denial with regard to the existence of the said documents in the written statement by the respondent. The learned Counsel, as such, pointed out that no interference is called for in the impugned order.

6. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel and I have also gone through the records. It is not in dispute that there is no specific format or form stipulated in the Evidence Act to issue a notice for producing the original document in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, but however, it is not in dispute that a notice to produce the said documents was issued to the respondent no.3. It is well settled that the substance to such notice would be relevant for considering whether there is substantial compliance of the notice as contemplated under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. Considering that such notice was issued and the respondent failed to produce the documents demanded