P BALRAJ Vs. A POCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the Plaintiff challenging the order of the learned District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam rejecting the request of the petitioner/plaintiff to permit him to file the photostat copy of the agreement of sale as secondary evidence. Normally no doubt photostat copy cannot be admitted in evidence. But in this case the original agreement of sale was sent by the court to the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam to find out the valuation of the suit property and to impound the document. The Sub-Registrar, after issuing so many reminders, reported to the Court that the document was lost.

(2.) Thereupon the plaintiff filed I.A.No.94/89 requesting the Court to permit him to file the photostat copy of the agreement of sale as secondary evidence. Sec.65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act empowers a party to let in secondary evidence:

(3.) Sec.65(c) is enacted only to meet such contingencies. It cannot be said that the loss of document is attributable to the plaintiff s default or negligence. If so, the secondary evidence, namely, the xerox copy available with him cannot be shut out from evidence.