KRISHNAPATNAM PORT COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. CARGILL INDIA PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. RAVI GOEL, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in IA.No.283 of 2017 in COS.No.72 of 2017, by virtue of which the Court allowed the petition, which was filed by the petitioner therein, to receive copies of certain documents, under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The petition, which was filed before the Court below, was on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has referred to and relied upon documents, which were mentioned in the annexure to the plaint, as document Nos.1 to 122 and that he is not in possession of some of the documents in original and that the documents are to be marked as exhibits. The petitioner searched the entire file available with him but the office copies of the documents having been lost during the shifting of the office, during internal transfer of case from one team to another, could not be found. It was mentioned in the petition that the documents, which were proposed to be admitted in evidence are notarized copies of the originals made by mechanical process, which in themselves ensure accuracy of the copies. The respondent therein filed a counter denying the averments of the petition; denying the genuineness of the documents proposed to be filed by the petitioner and also denying the fact of loss of files during shifting. The Court below, by considering that the documents are internal correspondence between third parties and that it is, hence, quite natural that the petitioner would have xerox copies of those documents, allowed the petition.

(3.) Impugning the said order, this revision is preferred on the grounds that the Court below ought to have seen that the respondent submitted that the office copies of the documents, regarding which secondary evidence was sought to be adduced, were lost and hence there would be even a remote possibility of tracing out the originals of the documents and that the Court below mechanically allowed the petition. The Court below erred in receiving the documents, the very existence of which was stoutly denied by the defendants and when there is no proof regarding existence and execution of the original documents. The Court below failed to see that the respondent did show sufficient reason for filing the original documents. The Court below ought to have seen that most of the photo/xerox copies sought to be marked are the internal office correspondence between the plaintiff and Shambolisugars Ltd., and the existence of original documents is proved by the plaintiff and hence, they cannot be marked.