Disposed¶18

Arun Goel and Anr. v. Vinay Jindal

Calcutta HC2 May 2025CO/1409/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Secondary evidence; photocopies of medical documents; originals not available; Section 65 Evidence Act; Section 66 Evidence Act; notice to produce; Order 16 Rule 6 CPC; Order 39 Rule 2A CPC; Article 227 Constitution; Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court Howrah; Misc. Case No. 25 of 2021; rejection of application to mark photocopies as exhibits upheld; C.O. 1409 of 2025; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

A party seeking to produce photocopies of documents by way of secondary evidence must comply with the requirements of Section 66 of the Evidence Act, which requires notice to produce to be served upon the party with whom the originals are lying. ¶13

Arun Goel and Anr. Vs Vinay Jindal — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' application to produce photocopies of medical documents as secondary evidence (originals not available) under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act was rightly rejected by the trial court for failure to comply with the notice-to-produce requirement of Section 66.

¶13

Court's answer

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners did not take steps in terms of Section 66 of the Evidence Act but instead filed the photocopies of the medical documents with a prayer to mark them as exhibits; the learned trial judge was therefore right in rejecting the application.

¶16

Key takeaways

This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order impugned.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application (C.O. 1409 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution by the plaintiffs (Arun Goel & Anr.) against the order dated March 5, 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2021 (a case under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC), whereby their application under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act to produce photocopies of medical documents as secondary evidence (originals not available) stood rejected. Held: a party producing photocopies as secondary evidence must first comply with Section 66 of the Evidence Act by serving notice to produce upon the party with whom the originals lie; the petitioners instead directly filed the photocopies with a prayer to mark them as exhibits, and the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application. No interference with the impugned order; C.O. disposed of leaving the petitioner free to take steps in accordance with law for production of secondary evidence; no order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; decided 02.05.2025.)

¶1

Sl. 8 02.05.2025 Court No.6 BP

¶2

C.O. 1409 of 2025

¶3

Arun Goel & Anr. -versusVinay Jindal

¶4

Mr. Purnasish Gupta Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay ..for the petitioners

¶5

This application under Article 227 of the

¶6

Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against an order dated March 5, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1^st Court at Howrah in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2021.

¶7

By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioners under Order 16 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 65 and Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act stood rejected.

¶8

Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that in connection with the miscellaneous case filed under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioners sought to produce photocopies of some medical documents by way of secondary evidence as the originals are not available with the petitioners.

¶9

Section 65 of the Evidence Act states that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original

¶10

¶11

is shown or appears to be in the possession or power - of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court or of any person legally bound to produce it and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it.

¶12

Section 66 of the Evidence Act states that secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in Section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, or to his attorney or pleader, such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case.

¶13

In the instant case the petitioner is seeking to produce photocopy of the medical documents by way of secondary evidence. For such purpose, the petitioner has to comply with the requirements laid down under Section 66 of the Evidence Act which requires notice to produce to be served upon the party with whom the original of such documents are lying.

¶14

The petitioner instead of taking steps in terms of the provisions laid down under Section 66 of the Evidence Act has filed the photocopies of the medical

¶15

¶16

documents with a prayer to mark the same as exhibits. The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the said application.

¶17

In view thereof, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned.

¶18

With the above observations and directions, C.O. 1409 of 2025 is disposed of by leaving the petitioner free to take steps in accordance with law for production of secondary evidence.

¶19

No order as to costs.

¶20

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

¶21

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Arun Goel and Anr. v. Vinay Jindal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Goel and Anr. v. Vinay Jindal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu Sutodia Vs Harpreet Raur Kohili

Mangobinda Das and Anr. Vs Sudhangsu Sekhar Das and Ors.

Bhabani Mallick Vs Swapan Kr Mallick

Debjani Lahiri Vs Sohaam Lahiri

Farid Ahmed Laskar Deceased Repd by Samim Aktar Laskar and Ors. Vs Munshidanga Dakshinpara Zumma Maszid

Anjali Mondal Vs Bablu Mondal and Anr.