1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:

BENCH AT INDORE

M.P.No. 1144/2017

(Pravin Vs. Ghanshyam & Others)

Indore, Dated: 23.03.2018

Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri

Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the

respondents.

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition

being aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2017 (Annexure

P/7) by which the application under Section 65 of the

Evidence Act has been rejected and also against the order

dated 06.11.2017 by which application under Order 16

Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected.

The petitioner being a plaintiff filed suit for

declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the

land bearing Survey No.32/2 and 32/5 total area 1.704

hectares of Village Nisharpur, Tehsil Kukshi, District Dhar.

The land was owned by one Lt.Sitaram who expired on

29.08.2013. According to the petitioner, he had executed

a Will dated 29.05.2003 in his favour and Lt. Sitaram had

also adopted him. After the death of Sitaram, the

petitioner became owner and agreed to sale the said land to

one Parasram and Prakash vide agreement to sell dated

04.09.2013. The plaintiff is in possession of the land but

therefore, the petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction

and declaration. The defendant No.1 filed written

statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

The plaintiff filed an application under Section 63, 65

and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act that he gave a notice to

the defendant but they denied the possession of the certain

documents, therefore, he may be permitted to prove the

Will, agreement to sale as a secondary evidence in the suit.

The respondent denied the averments made in the

application and thereafter, learned Trial Court vide order

dated 12.07.2017 has rejected the application on the

ground that the plaintiff has not filed any application in

this plaint for production of the document by the defendant

no.1.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed application under Order

16 Rule 1 of the CPC for calling Shantilal Jhapadia by way

of summon to prove the Will for collateral purpose.

Learned Trial court vide order dated 26.11.2017 has

rejected the same. Hence, present petition before this

Court.

I have heard Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Akshat

Pahadia, learned counsel for the respondents.

Initially the plaintiff has made averment that original

copy of the Will and Agreement to Sale is in possession of

before the Tehsildar in mutation proceedings. The plaintiff

has not filed any application for production of these

documents in the Civil Court as provided under Order 11

Rule 12, 13 and 14, therefore, there is no denial by the

defendant No.1 about possession of the Will and

agreement to sale by way of affidavit as provided in

Appendix "C", Form-5 .Therefore, the learned Trial Court

vide impugned order dated 12.07.2017 has rightly rejected

the application.

So far as the rejection of an application filed under

Section 63 and 65of the Evidence Act is concerned, the

plaintiff is required to prove that the photocopies of the

documents were made by copying machine from the

original and compared with the originals as contemplated

in sec 63 of Evidence Act. Thereafter, he was required to

prove the conditions as enumerated under Section 65 of

the Evidence Act. The Apex Court in case of Rakesh

Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 483

has considered the scope of Section 63 and 65 in case the

admissibility of the secondary evidence. Relevant portion

of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:

"13. As a general rule, documents are proved by

leading primary evidence. Section 64 of the Evidence Act

provides that documents must be proved by the primary

evidence except in cases mention in Section 65 of the

documents can be proved by secondary evidence as

contemplated under Section 63 of the Act which reads as

under: -

“Secondary evidence means and includes—

(1) certified copies given under the provisions

hereinafter contained;

(2) Copies made from the original by mechanical

processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the

copy, and copies compared with such copies.

(3) copies made from or compared with the original ;

(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties

who did not execute them;

(5) oral accounts of the contents of a documents

given by some person who has himself seen it.

Illustration:

(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its

contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is

proved that the thing photographed was the original.

(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a

copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of

the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying

machine was made from the original.

(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards

compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but he

copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the

was compared with the original.

(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the

original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine

copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.”

14. Section 65 of the Act deals with the circumstances

under which secondary evidence relating to documents may

be given to prove the existence, condition or contents of the

documents. For better appreciation Section 65 of the Act is

quoted herein below:-

“65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to

documents may be given: Secondary evidence may be given

of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the

following cases:-

(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the

possession or power—

of the person against whom the document is sought

to be proved, or

of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the

process of the Court or

of any person legally bound to produce it,

and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66,

such person does not produce it;

(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original

have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person

against whom it is proved or by his representative in

5
interest;

(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when

the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any

other reason not arising from his own default or neglect,

produce it in reasonable time;

(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily

movable;

(e) when the original is public document within the

meaning of section 74;

(f) when the original is a document of which a certified

copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force

in 40[India] to be given in evidence ;

(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or

other documents which cannot conveniently be examined

in court and the fact to be proved it the general result of the

whole collection.

In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the

contents of the document is admissible.

In case (b), the written admission is admissible.

In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no

other kind of secondary evidence, admissible.

In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result

of the documents by any person who has examined them,

and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.”

15. The pre-conditions for leading secondary evidence are

that such original documents could not be produced by the

party relied upon such documents in spite of best efforts,

The party sought to produce secondary evidence must

establish for the non-production of primary evidence.

Unless, it is established that the original documents is lost

or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party in

respect of that document sought to be used, secondary

evidence in respect of that document cannot accepted. "

Initially, the plaintiff case was that the documents are

in possession of Radheshyam/defendant No.1. When his

application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was

rejected, then he filed an application making assertion that

the said documents are now in possession of Shantilal

Jhapadia, therefore, he filed application for calling him in

the witness box. This second application is nothing but an

after thought and to delay the Court proceedings, therefore,

learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the applications

filed by the petitioner.

This Court in the case of Rashid Khan s/o Yasin Khan

Musalman and another reported in 2011(3) MPLJ 575

has specifically considered in detail whether the photocopy

can be accepted as secondary evidence. In another case of

Smt.Aneeta Rajpoot vs. Smt.Saraswati Gupta passed in

W.P.No.11990/2012 decided on 16.08.2012 this High

Court has considered the scope of section 65 of the Indian

Evidence Act in detail and held that the photocopy is not

the said judgment is reproduced below:

11. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant rightly

submitted that secondary evidence would include

categories mentioned in Clauses (1) to (5) to Section 63.

Learned counsel further rightly submitted that if

conditions embodied in Section 65(a) and (b) of the

Evidence Act exist, secondary evidence relating to

document can be given. In support of (6) W.P.

No.11990/2012 his forceful submissions, learned counsel

has placed reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court

Nawab Singh (supra) and Smt. J. Yashoda (supra) and also

of learned Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court Smt.

Ratan Sharma (supra). But, to me, even then in the facts

and circumstances of the present case the photocopy of the

document of receipt cannot be admitted in secondary

evidence. On bare perusal of the application under Section

65 of the Evidence Act which has been rejected by the

impugned order it is found that although it has been

mentioned that under the false pretext the plaintiff and her

husband obtained the original receipt from

petitioner/defendant, but, nowhere it has been so stated in

the application that the photocopy was made from the

original and it was compared with original. The name of

the person, who had obtained the photocopy by mechanical

process has also not been mentioned in the application and

also not mentioned nor any affidavit in that regard has

been filed.

12. So far as the applicability of Clause (2) of

Section 63 Evidence Act placed reliance by the learned

counsel for petitioner is concerned, according to me, it can

be said that by some mechanical process a photocopy of

original receipt was obtained, but, there cannot be any

surety of its correctness and accuracy in absence of

supporting material on record. Again in this regard there is

no averment in the application that the photocopy which

has been obtained by mechanical (7) W.P. No.11990/2012

process was never tempered and it ensures its accuracy.

Even if accurate photocopy is obtained by a mechanical

process, it is a matter of common parlance that after

inserting some words on a document which is already a

photocopy and by interpolating the same, another

photocopy of the said interpolated photocopy may be

obtained and thus the accuracy of photocopy is always

surrounded by dark clouds of doubt. In the present case

since there is no averment in the application under Section

65 that photocopy was compared with the original and it is

an accurate photocopy of the original and further by not

filing any affidavit of person who obtained the said

photocopy is on record, it is difficult to hold the hallmark

and authenticity and accuracy of the photocopy.

13. The decision of Nawab Singh (supra) placed

to context since it does not relate to admissibility of a

photocopy of the document to be admitted in secondary

evidence. Similarly another decision of Smt. J. Yashoda

(supra) is also not applicable because the photocopy was

not compared with the original and therefore photocopy

was not admitted as secondary evidence in that case (see

para 7 of the said decision). According to me, not only the

satisfaction of Clause (a) to Section 65 is required, but

simultaneously it is also required that the photocopy was

compared with the original in terms of section 63(3) of the

Evidence Act.

14. The Supreme Court in United India Assurance

Co. Ltd. V. (8) W.P. No.11990/2012 Anbari and other

2000(10) SCC 523 while dealing with the photocopy of

licence of a driver expressed the view as under :-

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the point regarding validity of the driver's licence was

raised by the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal and the Tribunal in accepting photocopy of a

document purporting to be the driver's licence and

recording a finding that the driver had a valid licence, has

committed a grave error of law. He also submitted that the

High Court has not dealt with the said contentions of the

appellant and without giving any reason has dismissed the

appeal. The Tribunal and also the High Court have failed
to appreciate that production of a photocopy was not

sufficient to prove that the driver had a valid licence when

the fact was challenged by the appellant and genuineness

of the photocopy was not admitted by it. Thus, the Apex

Court has held that photocopy was not sufficient to prove

that driver had a valid licence. By following the aforesaid

decision of Supreme Court, Shri Justice Dipak Misra, J (as

His Lordship then was) in Haji Mohd. Islam and another

v. Asgar Ali and Another AIR 2007 MP 157 has held that

when a photocopy without any reasonable source has been

filed, it is not permissible as secondary evidence. Yet there

is another decision of this Court in W.P. No.8224/2010

(Sunil Kumar Sahu v. Smt. Awadharani) decided on

31.08.2010 wherein it has been held that photocopy of a

document is not admissible as secondary evidence under

Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

In the case of Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Chhoti and

others reported in AIR 1990 SC 396 the Apex Court has

held that ordinary copy of the sale deed cannot be

considered as secondary evidence. Para-25 of the said

judgment is reproduced below:

25. The High Court said, and in our opinion very rightly

that Ex.3 could not be regarded as secondary evidence.

Section 63 of the Evidence Act mentions five kinds of

secondary evidence. Clauses (1),(2) and (3) refer to copies

of documents, clause (4) refers to counter parts of

documents and clause (5) refers to oral accounts of the

referred to in clause (1) is presumed under Section 79, but

that of other copies must be proved by proper evidence. A

certified copy of a registered sale deed may be produced as

secondary evidence in the absence of the original. But in

the present case Ex.3 is not a certified copy. It is just an

ordinary copy. There is also no evidence regarding contents

of the original sale deed. Ex.3 cannot, therefore, be

considered as secondary evidence. The appellate Court has

a right and duty to exclude such evidence.

In the case of Smt. J.Yashoda v. Smt. K.Shobha Rani

reported in AIR 2007 SC 1721 the Apex Court has held in

para-7,8 & 9 as under:

"7. Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible

only in the absence of primary evidence. 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

introduce secondary evidence of its contents.

8. Essentially, secondary evidence is an evidence

which may be given in the absence of that better evidence

which law requires to be given first, when a proper

explanation of its absence is given. The definition in Section

63 is exhaustive as the Section declares that secondary

evidence "means and includes" and then follow the five

kinds of secondary evidence.

9. The rule which is the most universal, namely that the

produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so

long as the higher or superior evidence is within your

possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no

inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof

of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In

order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is

necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of

the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to

be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits

secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or

contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned.

The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled

before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary

evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted

without non-production of the original being first accounted

for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the

cases provided for in the Section. In Ashok Dulichand v.

Madahavlal Dube and Another [1975(4) SCC 664], it was

inter alia held as follows:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we

are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this

respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of

Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, Secondary evidence may

be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document

when the original is shown or appears to be in possession or

power of the person against whom the document is sought to

be proved or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to,

the process of the Court of any person legally bound to

produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section

66 such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of

Section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein

secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but

we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common

case of the parties that the present case is not covered by

those clauses. In order to bring his case within the purview of

clause (a) of Section 65, the appellant filed applications on

July 4, 1973, before respondent No. 1 was examined as a

witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to

produce the original manuscript of which, according to the

appellant, he had filed Photostat copy. Prayer was also made

by the appellant that in case respondent no. 1 denied that the

said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy

might be got examined from a handwriting expert. The

appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications. It

was however, nowhere stated in the affidavit that the original

document of which the Photostat copy had been filed by the

appellant was in the possession of Respondent No. 1.

There was also no other material on the record to

indicate the original document was in the possession of

respondent no.1. The appellant further failed to explain as to

what were the circumstances under which the Photostat copy

was prepared and who was in possession of the original

No. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession appeared to

the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the

circumstances, the High Court to be not above suspicion. In

view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the

conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant

for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the Photostat

copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High

Court as might justify interference by this Court."

In the case of Ratanlal vs. Kishanlal reported in

2012 (III) MPJR 24 this Court has held as under:

"12. According to me the photocopy is neither a

primary nor secondary evidence and in this regard decision

of this Court Ramesh Verma and others etc. v. Smt.Lajesh

Saxena and others etc. AIR 1998 M.P 46 may be seen. Apart

from this even if it is stretched to the extent to bring the

photocopy of will Ex.P/1 within the sphere of secondary

evidence,the plaintiff was required to satisfy the ingredients

to Section 65 of the Evidence Act which speaks about the

11

secondary evidence. The plaintiff was further required to

examine the person who took out the photocopy of the

original. This is very much essential because it is a matter of

common knowledge that by putting another writing written

on a separate paper if that paper is kept upon the original

document and photocopy is taken out, the said photo copy

document."

The photocopy is neither a primary evidence nor

secondary because the party is required to prove when and

where the photocopy was taken and it is the same and

exact copy of the original, therefore, in view of the above

law trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting

the application under section 65 of the Indian Evidence

Act.

In the present case in absence of such pleadings, the

Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed

under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1961. Hence, no

interference is called for.

Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise

of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is

limited. The Supreme court in the matter of Shalini

Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil,

reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that High court in

exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to

correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another

view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts

subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High court can

exercise this power when there has been a patent

12

perversity in the orders of tribunals and courts subordinate

to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of

justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(VIVEK RUSIA)

Judge

jasleen