Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff (hereafter the petitioner) in a suit for declaration and injunction, wherein the opposite party is the sole defendant (hereafter the opposite party).
(2.) The petitioner through his learned advocate had issued a notice dated April 21, 2011 addressed to the opposite party. It was conveyed thereby that in response to the said advocate's notice dated November 15, 2010, 4 (four) documents had been served on him by the opposite party on April 18, 2011 while 4 (four) other documents, issued by it to the petitioner on several dates in the years 1967, 1968, 1976 and 1996, had not been served. Request was made to serve the un-served documents (hereafter the documents in question) at the earliest. Such request was not complied with and instead, the opposite party filed a petition on May 10, 2011 before the trial Court, wherein it was averred that the documents in question were not available in its office and, therefore, the opposite party ought to be exempted from producing the same.
(3.) The matter was considered by the learned trial Judge. A submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the failure of the opposite party to produce the documents as sought for by the petitioner, it should be allowed to exhibit photocopies of such documents because the same are secondary evidence and the petitioner is entitled to produce the same in terms of Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act (hereafter the Act). The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated June 14, 2011, which has been challenged in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution.;