- (1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners-original defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 8.2.05 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial curt') in Civil Suit No. 52/04 (31/93), whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent NO.2-original plaintiff for leading secondary evidence in respect of the documents as prayed for by the plaintiff. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is decided finally at the admission stage, the same being pending since 2005.
(2.) The short question which falls for consideration before this court is as to when the party could be permitted to lead the secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').
(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition, it would be beneficial to refer to the broad facts of the case put up by the parties before the trial court. The petitioners are the original defendants in the suit. The petitioner NO. 1 is the proprietary concern, of which the petitioner NO.2 is the proprietor. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff Company named Raymonds Synthetics Ltd., which was subsequently substituted as Recrone Synthetics Ltd. during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioners-defendants before the trial court, seeking recovery of Rs. 10,56,323.14/- together with interest amount of Rs. 1,96,431.20/-. It has been alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint interalia that the defendants had undertaken certain job work for the erection of its plant, as per the terms and conditions contained in the letter and the work order given by the plaintiff. It appears that thereafter certain disputes arose between the parties and according to the plaintiff, the defendants did not carry out the work as per the agreed terms. Hence the suit for recovery of the amount to the extent of 1% of the contract amount was filed. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff would place reliance upon documents annexed with the plaint and that Shri P.K. Bhandari, General Manager/Secretary of the Company was fully conversant with the facts of the case and was authorised for the institution of the case and for leading the evidence. The copy of the plaint has been annexed to the petition as Annex-1. The said suit has been contested by the petitioners-defendants by filing the written statement, denying the allegations and averments made in the plaint and further contending interalia that no amount as alleged was due against them. The copy of the written statement has been annexed by the petitioners as Annex.2 to the petition.;