HARISCHAND PIPARIYA Vs. MUKESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by defendant No. 1 against the order permitting the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence to prove partnership deed.

(2.) THE said application is moved by the plaintiff alleging that the copies of original partnership deed and MUKHTYARNAMA were filed by them in the Income -tax Department and now these documents are not traceable and, therefore, the plaintiff may be permitted to lead secondary evidence. Photostate copies of these documents were filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. A similar application was earlier moved by the plaintiff and that application was decided by the trial Court by order dated 6.9.2001. At that time the application was rejected on the ground that these documents as per the allegations of the plaintiff are with the Income -tax Department and so long as it is not proved that the documents are lost or misplaced, the application under section 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff paid process and summoned the Income Tax Officer. Income Tax officer appeared in the Court and stated that the said documents are not traceable in the Department and are misplaced. He further submitted that he wants two months time to search out the said documents. After this statement the plaintiff again moved an application under section 65 of Evidence Act, which was allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any substance in this revision. Now it is well settled by series of judgments of this Court that a photostate copy is covered under section 63 of the Evidence Act under the head "prepared by mechanical process". Moreover, illustration to section 63A clearly says that a photocopy of a document is admissible as a secondary evidence.