RAKESH MOHINDRA versus ANITA BERI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 13 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 06-11-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 13 S.C.R. 1158 
RAKESH MOHINDRA 
v. 
ANITA BERi AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 13361 of 2015) 
NOVEMBER 06, 2015 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 63, 65 - Leading of secondary 
c evidence - Admissibility of documents - On facts, order 
passed by the trial court allowing appellant to lead secondary 
evidence of the contents of the documents - Said order set 
aside by High Court -
Sustainability of -
Held: Not 
sustainable - All efforts were taken for purpose of leading 
D secondary evide_nce - Trial court noticed that the photocopy 
of the document came from the custody of DEO and the 
witness, who brought the record, was examined as witness-
There was compliance of the provisions of s. 65 - Merely 
because the signatures in some of the documents were not 
E 
legible and visible that cannot be a ground to· reject the 
secondary evidence - Thus, the order passed by the High 
Court set aside. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The pre-conditions for leading 
secondary evidence are that such original documents 
could not be produced by the party relied upon such 
documents in spite of best efforts, unable to produce 
G the same which is beyond their control. The party sought 
to produce secondary evidence must establish for the 
non-production of primary evidence. Unless, it is 
established that the original documents is lost or 
destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party 
H in respect of that document sought to be used, 
1158 
RAKESH MOHINDRA v. ANITA BERi AND OTHERS 
1159 
secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot A 
accepted. If a party wishes to lead secondary evidence, 
the Court is obliged to examine the probative value of 
the document produced in the Court or their contents 
and decide the question of admissibility of a document 
in secondary evidence. Mere admission of secondary B 
evidence, does not amount to its proof. The genuineness, 
correctness and existence of the document shall have 
to be established during the trial and the trial court shall 
record the reasons before relying on those secondary 
evidences. [Paras 17, 22, 26] [1167-C-E; 1170-D; 1171-G] C 
1.2 All efforts have been taken for the purpose of 
leading secondary evidence. The trial court noticed that 
the photocopy of the·document came from the custody 
of DEO Ambala and the witness, who brought the record, D 
·was examined as witness. In that view of the matter, there 
is compliance of the provisions of Section 65 of the 
Evidence Act. Merely because the signatures in some of 
the documents were not legible and visible that cannot 
be a ground to reject the secondary evidence. The trial E 
court correctly appreciated the efforts taken by the 
appellant for the purpose of leading secondary evidence. 
The impugned order passed by the High Court cannot 
be sustained in law and is set aside. [Paras 24, 25] [1171-
F 
C-F] 
J. Yashoda vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani AIR 2007 
SC 1721 : 2007 (5) SCR 367; H. Siddiqui (dead) 
by LRs. v. A. Ramalingam AIR 2011 SC 1492 : 
2011 (5) SCR 587; Rai Baijnath (D.ead) by 
G 
Kedarnath Goenka v. Maharaja Sir pavaneshwar 
Prasad Singh AIR 1922 Privy Council 54; 
M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu (2010) 9 SCC 
712: 2010 (11) SCR 38 - referred to. 
H 
1160 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 13 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference 
[2007] 5 SCR 367 
referred to 
Para 19 
[2011] 5 SCR 587 
referred to 
Para 19 
AIR 1922 Privy Council 
referred to 
Para 21 
[2010] 11 SCR 38 
referred to 
Para 23 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
13361 of 2015. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2014 of the 
D 
E 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CMPMO No. 
165of2014. 
K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr.Adv., Ms. Radhika Gautam, (For 
E. C.Agrawala),Advs., fortheAppellant. 
Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Rakesh Gupta, Advs.,. 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against order 
dated 2.9.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of the High 
Court of Himachal Pradesh who set aside the order rendered 
by the trial court permitting the defendant-appellant to lead 
F 
secondary evidence in the Civil Suit filed by respondent no.1. 
3. The short question that arises for consideration by 
this Court is as to whether the High Court is justified in reversing 
the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the defendant-
G appellant to lead secondary evidence of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.