Shri. Rajendra Mahadev Todkar vs M/S. Paranjpe Schemes ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 94 Bom

Dixit
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                WRIT PETITION NO.1385 OF 2017

        Rajendra Mahadev Todkar,                                ]
        Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service,                   ]
        R/of Flat No.401, Shivneri Plaza,                       ]
        C.T. Survey No.517/21/A, "E" Ward,                      ]
        Shivaji Park, District Kolhapur.                        ] .... Petitioner
                         Versus
        1. M/s. Paranjpe Schemes (Construction)                 ]
           Company Limited,                                     ]
           A Company registered under the                       ]
           provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,               ]
           with Branch Office at 517/21, "E" Ward,              ]
           Shivneri Plaza, Shivaji Park,                        ]
           District Kolhapur.                                   ]
           Through the Authorized Officer,                      ]
           Shri Anand Nagesh Paradekar,                         ]
           Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service,                ]
           Residence : As above.                                ]
                                                                ]
        2. Shri Satyajit Ajitsingh Shinde,                      ]
           Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture.            ]
                                                                ]
        3. Shri Brajesh Ajitsingh Shinde,                       ]
           Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture.            ]
                                                                ]
        4. Smt. Nirmaldevi Ajitsingh Shinde,                    ]
           Age : 71 years, Occupation : Household,              ]
                                                                ]
           Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are residents of               ]
           Nakshatra Heights, Shivaji Park,                     ]
           District Kolhapur.                                   ]
                                                                ]
        5. Shri Satyapriya Ramesh Shinde,                       ]
           Age : 52 years, Occupation : Business,               ]
           R/of 301, "C" Ward, Baner Road,                      ]
           Dist. Pune                                           ] .... Respondents


        Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the Petitioner.
        Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni for the Respondents.
                                                1/7
        WP-1385-17.doc

                 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2018            ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2018 00:47:34 :::
                           CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

                          DATE          : 5 TH JANUARY 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage

of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the

Petitioner, and Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. By this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 16 th August 2016 passed by

the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, below Exhibit-33 in

Special Civil Suit No.125 of 2013.

3. The application Exhibit-33 was filed by Respondent No.1-Plaintiff

seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of about 20

letters produced along with the list at Exhibit-32. According to

Respondent No.1, those letters were sent to the Petitioner demanding

the payment of the consideration amount from time to time. It was

stated that, the original letters are in possession of the Petitioner and,

therefore, earlier, the application was filed under Section 66 of the

Evidence Act, giving notice to the Petitioner to produce those letters.

However, Petitioner, in reply to the said application, stated that, those

letters are not in his custody or possession. Hence, Respondent No.1

filed this application at "Exhibit-33" for allowing it to produce the

secondary evidence under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act.

WP-1385-17.doc

4. The Petitioner has opposed the said application contending, inter

alia, that, the said application is not maintainable, as Respondent No.1

has to first establish that the original letters are existing and they were

sent to the Petitioner, so that one can hold that they are in the

possession of the Petitioner. Further it is submitted that, the Petitioner

has categorically stated that, those documents are not in his possession

and, accordingly, the Trial Court has also passed an order to that effect

below "Exhibit-39". In view thereof, it was submitted that, as the

necessary foundation for leading of secondary evidence is not

established, the application needs to be rejected.

5. The Trial Court, however, after hearing learned counsel for both

the parties and after relying on the provisions of Sections 63(2) and

65(a) of the Evidence Act, was pleased to allow the application. Being

aggrieved thereby, this Writ Petition is preferred.

6. In view of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the

Petitioner that there was nothing on record to show that Respondent

No.1 has issued these letters from time to time, at the time of hearing of

this Writ Petition on the last date, this Court has adjourned the matter,

in order to enable learned counsel for the Respondents to take

instructions whether the letters sent by Respondent No.1 to the

Petitioner are having any acknowledgment, if sent by hand delivery, or,

postal stamp, if sent through the Post. Accordingly, today, the learned

WP-1385-17.doc

counsel for the Respondents has produced on record about 4 letters,

which were issued to the Petitioner, along with the 'Under Postal

Certificate'. Out of those 4 letters, 2 letters, dated 8 th January 2007 and

26th April 2007, clearly contain the demand of the balance consideration

amount and they are also having the postal acknowledgment to show

that they were sent by 'Under Postal Certificate'.

7. Thus, at this stage, there is sufficient material to show that

Respondent No.1 has sent the letters demanding the balance

consideration amount and they were sent by UPC. The original letters, in

such situation, were required to be in possession of the Petitioner, to

whom those letters were addressed. Now Petitioner has stated that, he is

not in possession of those letters. In such situation, in view of Section

65(a) of the Evidence Act, the Trial Court was justified in granting

permission to Respondent No.1 to produce the secondary evidence. For

ready reference, Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act can be reproduced as

follows :-

"65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given -

Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:

(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of

WP-1385-17.doc

reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it."

8. Thus, as per this provision, when the original is shown or appears

to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the

document is sought to be proved and when, after notice mentioned in

Section 66 of the Evidence Act, such person does not produce it, then,

the secondary evidence can be permitted relating to those documents.

Here in the case, such notice, under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, was

given to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner came up with the case that, he

is not in possession of the original letters. In such situation, Respondent

No.1 is entitled to produce the copies of those letters, which are in its

possession. Accordingly, as sufficient foundation was laid, the Trial

Court has rightly permitted Respondent No.1 to lead the secondary

evidence.

9. As regards the authority relied upon by learned counsel for the

Petitioner in the case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. Vs. A. Ramalingam,

2011 (2) ALL MR 938 (S.C.), it can be seen that, the said Judgment

deals particularly with the proof of secondary evidence. It was held that,

"mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof

and the documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance

with law. The Court has an obligation to decide the question of

WP-1385-17.doc

admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making

endorsement thereon". Here in the case, the Trial Court itself has

specifically observed in paragraph No.7 of its order that, "merely

because Respondent No.1-Plaintiff is permitted to lead secondary

evidence regarding the letters claimed to be sent to the Defendants, it

will automatically not proved that the letters were received by the

Defendants and the burden lies on the Plaintiff to establish its case and

the Defendant will get opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the

Plaintiff on this aspect".

10. Therefore, this Judgment cannot be of any help to the Petitioner,

as in this case, by the impugned order, only the production of secondary

evidence is allowed. Whether those documents are to be exhibited or

admitted in evidence, that issue is kept open by the Trial Court also and

it will be decided in the course of the trial.

11. Similarly, as regards the second Judgment relied upon by the

learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Ashok Dulichand Vs.

Madahavlal Dube & Anr., (1975) 4 SCC 664 , it can be seen that, it

specifically deals with Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act and lays down

that, "secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or

contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in

the possession or power of the person against whom the document is

sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to,

WP-1385-17.doc

the process of the Court, of of any person legally bound to produce it and

when after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not

produce it".

12. Here in the case, Respondent No.1 has categorically averred and

his averments find substance from the documents, like, 'Under Postal

Certificate' and copies of the letters produced on record to show that the

original letters were sent to the Petitioner. As the Petitioner is stating

that he is not in possession thereof, then, naturally, Respondent No.1

gets the right to produce the secondary evidence.

13. Therefore, in the present case, as the necessary foundation for

production of the secondary evidence is laid down, the Trial Court has

rightly allowed the application of Respondent No.1 for production of the

secondary evidence. As regards exhibiting those documents and

admitting them in evidence, those issues are specifically left open by the

Trial Court and by this Court also, to be decided at its appropriate stage.

14. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. Rule is discharged.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

WP-1385-17.doc