THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NOs. 4379 and 4381 of 2007 Date of Judgment: 23.9.2011 Between: S. Raiwal Singh and another …Petitioners and Syed Azam (died) and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NOs. 4379 and 4381 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are defendants in OS No. 109 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. They filed IA No. 101 of 2007 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking leave of the trial court to receive documents 1 to 4 and 9 as secondary evidence. They also filed another IA No. 102 of 2007 under Order 8, Rule 1 A (3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking leave of the trial Court to receive the documents. By the common impugned order, the trial Court dismissed IA No. 101 of 2007 and partly allowed IA No. 102 of 2007 receiving documents 5 to 8 and 12 to 32 subject to proof and relevancy. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The matter was twice adjourned for hearing the respondents’ counsel i.e., on 15.9.2011 and on 16.9.2011. Even today when the matter was called, nobody appeared for the respondents. Even according to the petitioners, the documents 1 to 4 and 9 are the certified copies obtained from Registrar’s office. The petitioners state that the original documents are not traceable and therefore the certified copies were sought to be filed and marked in the suit as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court rejected the application by holding that the said documents cannot be received as secondary evidence. The trial Court has not kept in mind the fact that allowing the petitioners to lead secondary evidence shall be subject to their satisfying the ingredients of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. So far as the present application is concerned, the certified copies obtained from the Registrar’s office are requested to be received in evidence. It goes without saying that the petitioners, who seek to lead secondary evidence, will have to establish the loss of original documents as well as other ingredients of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. However, that stage would come only after the petitioners are allowed to lead evidence in that respect. The present stage before the trial court was only to receive the certified copies and subject to entitlement of the petitioners to lead evidence, the trial court could have decided as to whether the documents can be marked or not. The rejection of the documents from being received even for the purpose of leading secondary evidence before establishing the ingredients of Section 65 of the Act, in my opinion, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. In view of that, the impugned order dismissing IA No. 101 of 2007 is set aside. The trial Court shall permit reception of the aforesaid documents, but that by itself would not amount to accepting the documents as secondary evidence. The petitioners shall be at liberty to lead evidence to establish the ingredients of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and if the trial court is satisfied, further proceedings can be taken up as to the marking and consideration of the said certified copies. Both the revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 23.9.2011 KR