MUNISH KAPOOR Vs. ASHA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Shimla whereby he allowed the application filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and permitted the Plaintiffs to prove documents by leading secondary evidence.

(2.) AT the very outset, I am constrained to observe that the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act which read as follows: Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. - Secondary evidence may be given of the existence condition or contents of a document in the following cases -

(3.) COMING to the case in hand. The application moved by the Plaintiffs first related to the records of the Police Station, Sadar, Shimla. I have seen the original record. Out of the various documents relating to the police station, two documents i.e. letter dated 26.5.1999 on the letter head of Hotel Himani Residency and another letter of June 1999 on the letter head of News Post wherein photocopy of postal receipts is affixed dated 7.6.1999. No. doubt, these documents are photocopies, but on the said photocopies there is photocopy of the postal receipt also, which indicates that such documents were in fact posted and sent to the Police Station, Sadar.