Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Admissibility of Photocopies as Evidence - General PrinciplesPhotocopies are often considered secondary evidence and their admissibility depends on compliance with statutory requirements such as proper stamping, attestation, and proof of authenticity. Courts typically receive photocopies conditionally, reserving judgment on their evidentiary value until proper proof is provided. For instance, ["Raghav Das Chela Mahant Mathura Das VS Kali Ram Das Chela Mahant Ganga Ram Das Deceased - Allahabad"] states, the photocopies were marked as exhibits without objection...the genuineness of the same ["was"] never questioned, implying acceptance during proceedings but not automatic admissibility. Similarly, ["RUPARANI BANGARI vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"] notes that the words 'application for temporary injunction' have been reflected instead of 'application alleging disobedience or breach of injunction,' indicating procedural considerations but not conclusively establishing admissibility.
Legal Framework and Court PracticesOrder XI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code permits parties to file photocopies of documents in their possession, provided statutory conditions are met. The courts often accept photocopies at the initial stage for interim relief, such as temporary injunctions, but require proof of their authenticity and relevance later. ["M/s T.V.N Enterprises vs 1. M/s. Servomax Ltd. - Telangana"] emphasizes that Order XI Rule 1(1) specifies that the plaintiff is permitted to file photocopies...pertaining to the Suit along with the Plaint, reinforcing procedural allowance but not sufficiency for substantive evidence. Courts have also held that photocopies of unregistered or unverified documents are generally inadmissible unless properly attested or proved.
Photocopies During Temporary Injunction ProceedingsDuring interim relief applications, courts tend to admit photocopies conditionally, primarily to prevent delay, but with caution. ["Hariram VS Moru Devi - Rajasthan"] states that when photocopy is sought to be received as a secondary evidence, the document must satisfy the condition for admissibility in evidence, implying that photocopies are provisional and subject to further proof. Courts often direct parties to produce original documents or proper attestation for final admissibility. In cases like ["Rajkumar Salvi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], the court noted that photocopies of the documents relied upon...were in violation of Sections 63 and 65, indicating that improper or unverified photocopies are inadmissible for substantive purposes.
Preliminary Objections and Court ReservationsMany judgments reflect that photocopies filed during temporary injunction proceedings are accepted with reservations, pending verification. For example, ["Swetabh Suman VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"] observes that documents are received subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy, and the court reserved a decision on the documents' evidentiary value. This approach balances the need for interim relief against the requirement of evidence verification.
ConclusionPhotocopies can be admitted during temporary injunction proceedings as secondary evidence, but their admissibility is conditional. Courts generally accept them provisionally, subject to further proof of authenticity, proper stamping, and compliance with statutory provisions. Ultimately, original documents or properly attested copies are required for substantive proof, and courts reserve final judgment on their admissibility until such proof is furnished.References: ["Raghav Das Chela Mahant Mathura Das VS Kali Ram Das Chela Mahant Ganga Ram Das Deceased - Allahabad"], ["RUPARANI BANGARI vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"], ["M/s T.V.N Enterprises vs 1. M/s. Servomax Ltd. - Telangana"], ["Rajkumar Salvi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Hariram VS Moru Devi - Rajasthan"], ["Swetabh Suman VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]
In the fast-paced world of litigation, especially trademark disputes or property claims, parties often rely on photocopies (Xerox copies) of key documents like registration certificates to seek urgent relief. But what happens when a court rejects these as evidence? The question arises: admissibility of photocopies during temporary injunction order. This issue can make or break your case at the interim stage under Order 39 Rules 1-2 CPC.
This blog post delves into Indian judicial precedents, highlighting why uncertified photocopies typically fail to prove critical rights, procedural pitfalls to avoid, and strategies for success. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Courts have consistently held that photocopies of foundational documents, such as trademark registration certificates, are not admissible as evidence in proceedings for permanent or temporary injunctions without originals or certified copies. This stems from Section 31 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which requires originals (or certified copies) as prima facie proof of validity. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783
In one key case, the trial court dismissed the suit after marking photocopies as exhibits 'subject to objection,' later ruling: Exs.A1-A4 are xerox copies. It is well settled law that xerox copies are not admissible in evidence. Once those documents are not held admissible, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to rely on it. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783 This led to a finding of no prima facie case, defeating the injunction claim.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:- Primary evidence (originals) is preferred (Sections 61-64).- Secondary evidence like photocopies requires strict conditions under Section 65, such as proving the original is lost, destroyed, or in the opponent's possession, often via notice under Section 66. Rajbir Singh VS Ved Parkash - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1936
Failure to meet these dooms photocopies: Secondary Evidence--In absence of original documents the photocopies could not be relied upon. Rajbir Singh VS Ved Parkash - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1936 Another ruling emphasizes: It is not the case of the appellant-plaintiff that original documents were lost and photocopies were brought on record. Rajbir Singh VS Ved Parkash - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1936
In trademark suits, this directly impacts temporary injunctions, where plaintiffs must show a prima facie case of valid rights.
A common trial court mistake is marking photocopies as exhibits 'subject to objection of proof and admissibility' without immediate rulings. The Supreme Court criticized this: The trial court should not have 'marked' as exhibits the xerox copies... in face of the objection raised by the defendants. It should have declined to take them on record as evidence... rather than leaving the issue of admissibility... open and hanging. Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688
Under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC, courts must endorse admitted documents. Objections to inherent inadmissibility (not just mode of proof) can be raised later, even on appeal. Distinction is key:- Inadmissibility of document itself: Can be raised anytime. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783- Mode of proof irregularity: Must be prompt, or waived. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783
Marking photocopies misled plaintiffs, causing prejudice rectified only on appeal. Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688
Temporary injunctions under Order 39 CPC require prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Unproven photocopies fail this: the available evidence on record did not establish the case of the plaintiff and there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783
Principles from permanent injunction suits apply analogously to interim stages, as both hinge on proof of rights. No precedents differentiate, implying uniform standards. Even in ex parte scenarios, courts must record reasons under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, and weak evidence like unstamped photocopies invites scrutiny. MAHIPAL SINGH VS BOARD OF REVENUE - 1994 Supreme(All) 398Beeran Haji, S/o. Muideen VS Ali - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 964
Other judgments reinforce these rules:- Stamp Duty Requirement: Photocopies must prove proper stamping for admissibility. In order to admit a document as a primary evidence or in secondary evidence it must bear a stamp of proper amount, the photocopy cannot be admitted without proof of proper stamp duty. Beeran Haji, S/o. Muideen VS Ali - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 964- No Explanation for Originals: Courts reject where loss isn't alleged. Plaintiff’s documents are not only photocopies but unregistered also which cannot be read in evidence. Rajbir Singh VS Ved Parkash - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1936- Appellate Leniency: Documents may be marked 'subject to proof' if debatable, but final rulings apply. Parelli Rama Krishna vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74636- Unclean Hands: Even if evidence is tendered, forcible actions bar injunctions. Mohd. Afzal Shah VS Gh. Ahmad Shah - 2004 Supreme(J&K) 99
In one instance, lost originals led to rejection of photocopies as secondary evidence without full applications. Rajkumar Salvi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1283
Limited exceptions exist:- Certified Copies: Admissible under Section 31 TM Act.- Additional Evidence on Appeal: Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, appellate courts may allow originals for 'substantial reason' to cure prejudice. The Supreme Court noted: The learned Single Judge rightly allowed the appellant’s plea... as additional evidence because that was simply in the interest of justice... But then the Single Judge seriously erred in proceeding simultaneously to allow the appeal and not giving the respondent-defendants an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688- Waiver: Only for mode of proof, not inherent flaws. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783
To strengthen temporary injunction applications:1. File originals or certified copies of registrations early.2. For secondary evidence, file affidavits proving loss/possession issues under Evidence Act Sections 65-66.3. Object promptly to opponent's photocopies on admissibility, seeking rulings before marking.4. If marked 'subject to,' request pre-judgment decisions.5. Appeal rejections under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, seeking additional evidence if prejudiced.6. In ex parte bids, ensure robust evidence to justify urgency under Order 39 Rule 3. MAHIPAL SINGH VS BOARD OF REVENUE - 1994 Supreme(All) 398
Photocopies may seem convenient, but courts demand originals or certified secondary evidence for temporary injunctions, especially in IP or possession suits. Relying solely on them risks dismissal for lack of prima facie case. By understanding these principles—drawn from Supreme Court and High Court rulings—you can better prepare your case.
Key Takeaways:- Uncertified photocopies are typically inadmissible without foundational proof. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. VS Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 783Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688- Avoid procedural traps like deferred admissibility rulings.- Seek appellate remedies judiciously, ensuring rebuttal opportunities.
Stay proactive with evidence to tip the balance of convenience in your favor. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
#TrademarkLaw #InjunctionIndia #EvidenceAdmissibility
The photocopies were marked as exhibits without objection. The respondents never questioned the genuineness of the same. ... Division dated October 4, 1978, passed by him in inquiry under section 6 of the Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention from Dissipation of Properties (Temporary Powers) Act, 1962. ... The appellants produced photocopies of all other resolutions, government orders and sale deed in favour of their vendor O.A. Majid Khan by the Municipality. ... This order became final between the parties. .......
dated 29.06.2020, the words “for grant of temporary injuction” have been breach of injuction.” ... , the words “application for temporary injunction” have been reflected instead of “application alleging disobedience or injunction” be read as “application alleging disobedience or p style=
Plaintiff’s documents are not only photocopies but unregistered also which cannot be read in evidence. In these circumstances there is no merit in appeal, hence rejected. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. LCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back. ... It is not the case of the appellant-plaintiff that original documents were lost and photocopies were brought on record. ... It is well settled law that in case a party wishes to lead secondary evidence, the Court is obliged to examine the probative value of the document produced in t....
State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 1, permitted the documents to be received into evidence subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy. Aggrieved by this interim order, the present petitioner filed the current petition. 4. ... Where the admissibility is debatable as in this matter or contextual, it is prudent to reserve the ruling for final adjudication. 17. In light of the above, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. ... The impugned order clearly states that ....
The learned trial Court though recording an objection raised on behalf of the applicant with regard to the issue of admissibility of the xerox copies of the documents relied by the prosecution, to be taken on record, the Trial Court had permitted those photocopies to be exhibited and were given exhibit ... By virtue of the impugned order, which has been put to challenge, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun, had proceeded to permit the State to lead its evidence by way of secondary evidence by taking on record t....
Thus, it is submitted that the petition may be allowed, and the aforesaid impugned order be set aside. ... both these conditions have not been complied with, in such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. ... ORDER 1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Rajkumar Salvi under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ... So far as the admissibility of a photocopy as a secondary evidence is concerned, reference may be had to the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Dushyant Sh....
The admissibility of the instrument in evidence must satisfy the condition that the instrument bears a stamp of proper amount. ... The landlord raised an objection but that has been overruled by a speaking order. This order is in question by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. ... In a rent control petition for eviction, during trial, an attempt was made by the tenant to cross examine the landlord with reference to the photocopies of the rent agreement and to mark the same. ... However, when photoco....
Order XI Rule 1 (1) however contemplates filing photocopies of documents in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and additional documents under Sub-Rule (4), subject to compliance of the statutory requirements as stated above. ... In fact, Order XI Rule 1 (1) specifies that the plaintiff is permitted to file photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the Suit along with the Plaint. 24. ... Order XI Rule 1(1) outlines a mandatory obligation on....
It is of utmost importance to note that an ex parte order of injuction is an exception, the general rule being that order be passed only after hearing both the parties. ... After hearing the counsel for the parties the Board of Revenue had come to the conclusion that the order of ex parte injuction dated 30-4-92 itself was manifestly illegal. ... Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act vests the trial court with the jurisdiction to grant a temporary injuction if in t....
ORDER 1] This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. Nos. ... Deepchand and others passed in M.P.No.1971/2022 order dated 6/9/2023 where the original documents were lost and an application was filed for producing the photocopies of the same in evidence, and this Court held that such documents cannot be taken into account as secondary evidence ... petitioner as the prosecution has not filed the application narrating all the relevant factors for accepting the photocopies of the documents as ....
5. Being aggrieved with the temporary injuction order passed by the trial court, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate court, however, the appellate court after hearing counsel for the parties has affirmed the order passed by the trial court on the temporary injuction application.
8. The Temporary Injuction Order dated 6.3.2006 granted in the present Appeal stands vacated.
B-1 to B-8 being tested, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9(partly) held as follows : 7. ...Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. In the case of Subhash Harnarayanji Laddha (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to look into the Xerox copy of an agreement for sale in the absence of any explanation whatsoever as to why the original agreement for sale was not produced. If the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party, who files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introdu....
The photocopies submitted by the appellant were “marked” by the trial court as Exs. A1-A5, “subject to objection of proof and admissibility”. At the conclusion of the trial, the court dismissed the suit of the appellant by judgment and order dated September 28, 1998 inter alia holding that the available evidence on record did not establish the case of the plaintiff and there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court arrived at its findings mainly because the appellant did not file the tr....
On such conclusion the trial court order has been set-aside and the application for grant of temporary injuction has been rejected. The appellate court has referred to some of the judgements and taken note of the case law reported in SLJ 1989 J&K 94, AIR 1974 SC 53, SLJ 1984 131 and 1999 (3) SCC 161, to conclude that a trust-passer and one who takes law in his own hands cannot be granted any protection under law may be in the form of interim injuction.
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
