K NEELAMMA Vs. B SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed an application I A No. 828/88 to receive the xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 16-1-73 executed by late D Ramachandram in favour of K. Neelamma, W/o. Krishnamurthy. THE trial court rejected the plea of the petitioner to admit the documents as secondary evidence on the ground that she failed to prove that she was not in a position to have the original. It is common that in certain cases this Court has come across that xerox copies being filed so that it may not be possible for either side to compare the signatures in that document properly. When the party approached the court on the ground that the original has been lost and a xerox copy is available the burden is on the party to prove that the original has been lost or that she was not in a position to have the control thereof or that she lost the control of the original document In this case the party alleges that the document was with one Kattamallu. In what way that Kattamallu js connected with the transaction is not known nor explained. If Kattamallu has taken away that document the question of obtaining a xerox copy does not arise. In the plaint or in the injunction petition no foundation has been laid about the document being kept with that Kattamallu and that she was able to have possession of the xerox copy only. Clause (2) to Section 63 of the Evidence Act defines the secondary evidence as secondary evidence means and includes copies made from the originals by mechanical process which themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies. In this case a xerox copy of the document dated 16-1-1973 was filed. THEre is no proof or evidence to show that the xerox copy was so compared with the original. At what point of time the xerox copy was obtained or taken from the original is not explained and not known to the party also. So when this is the state of affairs, when the party who wants to lead the secondary evidence fails to prove at what point of time she parted with the original and at what point of time she obtained the original, the trial court is justified in rejecting the claim of the party to allow her to produce this document as a secondary evidence. It is also to be seen that the transaction is at Warangal and the stamp that was alleged to have been purchased is at Narasampet which is far away from Warangal. All these circumstances clearly show that she came forward with a false plea about the document being kept with one Kattamallu. When she has not explained and the explanation offered by the party is not satisfactory to show that the original has been lost or she was not in a position to have the same the lower court is perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to adduce the xerox copy as 'a secondary evidence. It is to be noted by the Lower Courts that whenever a xerox copy has been filed the duty of the court is much more than when a copy produced under other mechanical processes i.e , photo copy or carbon copy, etc., is produced. THE reasoning given by the lower court is correct and it does not warrant any interference. THE Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.