ONKAR LAL Vs. U.I.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner's application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was dismissed by the trial Court and the trial Court observed that unless it is proved that the copy which has been produced for admitting in evidence as secondary evidence, is proved to be true and correct copy of the original document, cannot be admitted in evidence. The trial Court also observed that the photo -stat copy is not admissible when original document was not produced, has been held by the Calcutta High Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the entire story set up by the plaintiff about loss of the original document is false as according to him, in the theft committed in the month of February, 1996, the said Patta in question was taken away by the thief, whereas as per the facts mentioned in para 8, he has shown the original Patta to the investigating officer who was investigating the case registered on lodging the FIR by the defendant. In view of the above, the petitioner's contention that the original document was lost in February, 1996 is false. It is also submitted that once the document is admitted in evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the defendant will be deprived from taking objection about admissibility of the document as well as may be deprived from challenging the correctness of the copy of the original produced in evidence by the plaintiff and further more the defendant will not be able to prove that there was no such Patta in existence and, therefore, there could not have been any copy of the original document so as to create title in favour of the petitioner.