- (1.) The civil revision is against the dismissal of application for reception of secondary evidence. The Court has dismissed it saying that photostat copy cannot be received. There is no law that requires any permission for seeking the production of secondary evidence. It is invariably a matter of evidence that has to be tested in the crossexamination and it cannot be tested at the threshold on a petition filed. The only point that has to be seen is whether the party has made sufficient ground for introducing secondary evidence. If the second evidence is tendered by giving justification under any of the grounds set out in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is bound to receive the same and if objection is taken, the same will be taken subject to objection and the party shall be allowed to give evidence on the same.
(2.) Section 65 of the Evidence Act refers to the circumstances when secondary evidence could be let in and also gives details of what constitutes secondary evidence. It shall be possible for a party, who is aggrieved by the document to cross-examine the witness and test the correctness of the statement that the original had been lost or any of the grounds set out in law are not satisfied. There is no legal requirement to file a petition seeking for permission to produce secondary evidence though it is a prevalent practice in some of the Courts. The Supreme Court was actually giving guidelines for a new practice in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat, 2001 3 SCC 1 when it was ruling that any objection to admissibility of a document shall not be a cause for holding up trial but the Court shall receive the documents subject to objection and given its ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the document at the time of delivering the judgment. This practice was to ensure that there is a smooth flow of trial and cases are not delayed by the only fact that objections are taken as regards the admissibility of document.
(3.) What was stated by the Supreme Court in the above case as regards coping with objection regarding admissibility of a document ought to be applied with equal force also to a consideration whether secondary evidence is possible for being adduced in a given case or not. The party has adopted the procedure which is superfluous and I do not want the case to be detained on this account. I dispense with notice to the respondent and direct the trial Court to receive the document subject to objection taken by the other party and allow for crossexamination to be made on the said document that there was a justification for production of secondary evidence. This will also be keeping in with sound practice and procedure not to hold the trial for technical reasons to secure a full-fledged adjudication after setting out, as it were, all the cards open on the table.;