VENKATRAMAN Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IGHING the order dated 12.4.2005 passed in AI.A.No,375 of 2005 in O.S.No,446 of 2002 by the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) THE long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:- THE revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No,446 of 2002 before the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, seeking mandatory as well as permanent injunction by setting out the following prayers: Tamil

(3.) AT this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the trite proposition of law that a xerox-copy of a document before the civil Court cannot be entertained in view of the obvious reason that there will be no authenticity relating to such document. The lower Court correctly adverting to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, considered the matter and rejected the application. Simply because the plaintiff could not secure either the certified copy or the office copy of the alleged order dated 6.8.1976, he cannot be allowed to mark unauthenticated xerox copy of the document. The ratiocination behind such embargo for marking xerox-copy is that valuable civil right of a person should not be jeopardised by entertaining such dubious evidence. If at least the document sought to be marked is a certified copy under challenge of the opponent or such like documents, then subject to proof it could be marked by adhering to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another), certain excerpts from it would run thus: