Dismissed¶35

Navas v. Rajendiran

Madras HC23 Jul 2025CRP/2091/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Navas v Rajendiran, CRP.No.2091 of 2025 and CMP.No.12193 of 2025, Madras High Court, P.B. Balaji J, 23.07.2025 - revision under Article 227 against refusal in I.A.No.181 of 2025 (O.S.No.772 of 2020, Additional Sub Judge, Kallakurichi) to receive photostat copies of two earlier unregistered agreements for sale (Documents 1 and 2) in a specific performance suit; held that where originals are not before the Court, the procedure mandated under Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act for secondary evidence must be followed and Photostat copies cannot be introduced; CRP dismissed, CMP closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

As long as the originals are not before the Court and secondary evidence is sought to be produced, the party must follow the procedure mandated under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act. ¶29

Navas Vs Rajendiran — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.03.2025 in I.A.No.181 of 2025 in O.S.No.772 of 2020, dismissing the defendant's application to receive Documents 1 and 2 (photostat copies of earlier agreements for sale) for non-compliance with the Evidence Act procedure for secondary evidence, ought to be set aside in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Court's answer

As long as the originals are not before the Court and secondary evidence is sought to be produced, the party must follow the procedure mandated under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the petitioner cannot introduce Photostat copies as evidence on their side where the originals are not before the Court.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Court found no infirmity or perversity in the trial Court's findings rejecting the two photostat copies of the sale agreement while permitting three other documents to be received.ratio¶34
The agreement sought to be specifically enforced is a registered sale agreement, whereas the sale agreements sought to be relied upon through photostat copies are unregistered sale agreements.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (P.B. Balaji, J.), order dated 23.07.2025: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed, upholding the order dated 28.03.2025 of the Additional Sub Judge, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.181 of 2025 in O.S.No.772 of 2020. The revision petitioner (Navas), defendant in a suit for specific performance, had sought to receive five additional documents; the trial Court permitted Documents 3 to 5 but dismissed the application as regards Documents 1 and 2, agreements for sale entered into between the parties earlier than the suit agreement, because photostat copies were tendered although the originals were not before the Court and the procedure mandated under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act for marking secondary evidence had not been followed. The High Court held that as long as the originals are not before the Court and secondary evidence is sought, the procedure under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act must be followed and Photostat copies cannot be introduced as evidence; it further noted that the agreement sought to be specifically enforced is a registered sale agreement while the agreements sought to be relied on through photostat copies are unregistered. No infirmity or perversity was found in the trial Court's findings. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition CMP.No.12193 of 2025 closed.

¶1

CRP.No.2091 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.07.2025

¶4

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶5

CRP.No.2091 of 2025 and

¶6

CMP.No.12193 of 2025

¶7

Navas

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs. Rajendiran ... Respondent

¶10

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.181 of 2025 in O.S.No.772 of 2020 on the file of Additional Sub Judge Court, Kallakurichi dated 28.03.2025.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ranjith Kumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Gunasekar

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.181 of 2025 in O.S.No.772 of 2020, on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Kallakurichi dated 28.03.2025.

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

CRP.No.2091 of 2025

¶17

The revision petitioner is the defendant in a suit for specific

¶18

performance.

¶19

The revision petitioner attempted to mark some additional

¶20

documents and took out an application in I.A.No.181 of 2025, seeking to receive five documents on the side of the defendant. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff and the trial Court while permitting documents 3 to 5 to be received, dismissed the application in so far as two of the documents namely Document No.1 and 2, which are agreements for sale, entered into between the parties themselves, on an earlier date, i.e, prior to the document which is sought to be enforced by the respondent / plaintiff. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the defendant has not followed the procedure mandate under the Evidence Act to mark secondary evidence.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the said order of

¶22

the trial Court, would contend that at the time of marking documents, original documents shall be filed and there is no bar to file Photostat copies along with the application.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

CRP.No.2091 of 2025

¶26

Learned Counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would however

¶27

state that it is the categorical case of the revision petitioner that the originals that are sought to be marked, according to the revision petitioner, are only with the respondent / plaintiff and the trial Court has rightly held that without following the procedure for permitting secondary evidence to be adduced, the application for receiving photostat copies of the documents is not maintainable and there is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court.

¶28

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

¶29

Firstly, it is stated that the agreements that are sought to be relied on by the defendant, are agreements that are prior to the suit agreement which is alone sought to be enforced. Moreover, the agreement that is sought to be specifically enforced is a registered sale agreement and the sale agreements which are sought to be relied on by introducing photostat copies along with the applications are unregistered sale agreements. Further, in any event, as long as the originals are not before the Court and secondary evidence is sought to be produced, the petitioner should have followed the procedure mandated under Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act. That being

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

CRP.No.2091 of 2025

¶33

so, the petitioner cannot introduce Photostat copies as evidence on their side.

¶34

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings of the trial Court, rejecting two photostat copies of the sale agreement, while permitting three other documents to be registered.

¶35