TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two documents in evidence at the time of the trial of the above mentioned suit. One of the documents is an alleged notice dated 17.10.2003 issued by an Advocate on behalf of the defendants in the suit and the second document is the typed copy of an alleged partition deed said to have been supplied to the petitioner by the defendants in O.S. No. 130 of 1966 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kakinada. 2. By the impugned order, the above mentioned IA was allowed and in the language of the Trial Court as follows : Petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay for costs of ₹ 100/- and copy of legal notice to be received in the evidence and typed copy of partition deed cannot be received as secondary evidence as it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. An analysis of the scheme of Order 7 discloses the following: 4. Order 7 deals with the plaint, the contents of the plaint, return or rejection of the plaint etc. Rule 14 mandates that whenever a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document as the basis of his claim in the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with the pleading. 6. Clearly there is a distinction between the nature of the documents covered under Order 7, Rule 14 and Order 13, Rule 1. A document filed under Order XIII, Rule 1 as a piece of evidence in support of the claim of one of the parties to the suit filed along with the pleading may eventually be proved or may not be proved by the concerned party depending upon the issues involved in the suit Order 13, Rule 1 deals with only reception of the documents by the Court as part of the record of the suit. It does not deal with reception of the document as a piece of evidence. Rule 13 deals with a stage prior to the reception of the evidence in the suit. Whereas Order 7, Rule 14 deals with different situation altogether. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the affidavit filed in support of the IA, it is not possible even to call the document in question a piece of secondary evidence because there is no allegation that the document falls under one of the categories enumerated in Section 63 of the Act. Assuming for the sake of argument that the document in question falls within the description of expression 'secondary evidence', the party who seeks to tender secondary evidence is required to satisfy the Court that the conditions prescribed by the law under Section 65 of the Evidence Act do exist which enable him to tender secondary evidence with regard to a document. Section 65 of the Evidence Act categorizes the various contingencies in which the reception of the secondary evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
