ARULSINGAMANI Vs. S VAIGUNTHA RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 8966 of 1996 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court , chennai are the revision petitioners herein.

(2.) SUIT filed by plaintiffs was one for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,00,500 with interest on the allegation that petitioners herein have caused publication defaming them by sending a letter dated 11. 5. 1992 addressed to Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Madras. Copy of the said letter was sent to Deputy Director of Mines, Tirunelveli who made enquiries with plaintiffs. In para 15 of the plaint plaintiffs have said that 'defendants have published this petition by sending the same to the Secretary, industries Department, Madras . The same was enquired by the Deputy Director of Mines. Tirunelveli regarding the allegations in the said petition. The plaintiff was shown the copy of the said petition sent by the defendants and the plaintiff had taken a copy of it. The plaintiff had to answer the allegation. "

(3.) THE main submission made by learned counsel for petitioners was that Ex. A. 1 is admittedly a copy taken from the copy of the document and the same cannot be marked under Evidence Act. It is submitted under Evidence Act, only piece of evidence that are admissible are primary evidence and secondary evidence. Primary evidence is production of original document itself and secondary evidence includes certain types of documents and ex. A. 1 will not come within those provisions of Evidence Act. It is argued that if Ex. A. 1 do not come within either primary evidence or secondary evidence, the same cannot be admitted and that does not depend on taking on objection at the time when it is marked. It is the duty of the Court itself to sue whether the document is admissible under law. It is further argued that the objection is not regarding procedure regarding proof but regarding admissibility of the document itself.