PERIASAMY Vs. K PERIYASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. The Plaintiff/ 1st respondent herein has filed the suit O.S. No. 125 of 1991 before the principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal for declaration that he is entitled to use the passage and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right. The Plaintiff/ 1st respondent herein has sought permission of the Court below to mark certified copies of two sale deeds dated 30-10-1974 and 20-8-1973 which were executed in favour of the first defendant /second respondent herein. The same was objected by the petitioner herein. but the trial Court allowed the 1st respondent herein to mark those documents as secondary evidence, hence this revision.

(2.) Mr. Dhanyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act shall not be applicable unless the party proposing to prove secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law, but no such notice was given by the petitioner herein to produce it; that the trial Court failed to note that issuance of summons to mother of the 1st defendant/2nd respondent herein or attestors of document has nothing to do with the production of original document; that the Court below failed to note that the first defendant colludes with the plaintiff and remains ex parte in the suit and prayed for setting aside the order of the Court below.

(3.) Now, we look into S. 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, which runs as follows :