Allowed

Ramesh v. Dhanapal Naidu

Madras HC28 Oct 2020CRP/2321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition before the Madras High Court, the Court examined the trial court's rejection of a photocopy of a VAO Certificate as inadmissible secondary evidence due to lack of an application. The High Court held that Section 65 of the Evidence Act does not mandate an application for such production.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court rejecting Ex.A9 was set aside, and the marking of the photocopy as evidence was sustained.

Ramesh Vs Dhanapal Naidu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRP (PD) No.2321 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.10.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

CRP (PD) No.2321 of 2018
Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Dhanapal Naidu
2. Dhasarathan
3. Sampath ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: The Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.1279 of 2016 in O.S.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Paul Sunder Singh

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.N.Sivaprakash

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The plaintiff in O.S.No.68 of 2012 has come up with this revision

¶12

challenging an order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.1279 of 2016,

¶13

1/4

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

CRP (PD) No.2321 of 2018

¶16

seeking rejection of a document produced as Ex.A9, VAO Certificate, on the

¶17

ground that the same is inadmissible in evidence being a photo copy.

¶18

The learned trial Judge had faulted the plaintiff for not filing a

¶19

petition under Section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to mark

¶20

the photo copy of the document Ex.A9. I am constrained to point out that

¶21

such a requirement is unknown to law. In order to enable production of

¶22

secondary evidence a party is only required to show that the primary evidence is not available with him or it is in the custody of the opposite

¶23

party. Section 65 of the Evidence Act, does not contemplate an application

¶24

for the said purpose.

¶25

Coming to the case on hand, the plaintiff even in the plaint has

¶26

stated that the VAO Certificate was obtained on 10.06.1998 for securing electricity connection and the same has been handed over to the Electricity

¶27

Department. A perusal of the Certificate also shows that it is issued for the purpose of securing electricity connection for the house constructed by the

¶28

plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to produce the photo copy of the

¶29

2/4

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

CRP (PD) No.2321 of 2018

¶32

same in evidence in this case. The trial court fell in error in concluding that

¶33

an application is required for production of secondary evidence.

¶34

Therefore, the order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.1279 of
2016 in O.S.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Chengalpattu is set aside and the marking of the document as Ex.A9 is
sustained. The Civil Revision petition is therefore allowed. No costs.
28.10.2020
vum
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
To
The District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

¶35

3/4

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

CRP (PD) No.2321 of 2018

¶38

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶39

vum

¶40

CRP (PD) No.2321 of 2018
28.10.2020

¶41

4/4

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

Ramesh v. Dhanapal Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. Dhanapal Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramasamy Vs Vetrivelan

Karuppa Gounder Vs Pongiyann Gounder

Madavemmal Vs Mahadevappa

Y.R.Prasanna Vs Indira Raveen

T.Natarajan Vs S.Tejraj,S/O Soganraj

N.Kishorekumar Vs Nehru Vivekanandan