JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: (Oral) - Heard the submissions made on either side. 2. In a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction the plaintiff chose to file an application during the course of trial of the case praying that he be permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing the photocopies of the affidavits sworn to by the defendants as well as the predecessors-in-title of defendants on the plea that the originals of those affidavits were lost. 3. Objection was raised by the defendants therein that photocopies of the original documents are not admissible in evidence. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the photocopies of the affidavits could be permitted to be exhibited in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would vehemently submit that the trial Court has totally misread the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. J. Yashoda vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 840 and held that the photocopies of the originals are not admissible in evidence. It is his submission that the originals have been lost and therefore, the necessity has arisen for the revision petitioners to exhibit the photocopies of the affidavits already produced before the Court. In the absence of primary evidence, a party to the suit is entitled to exhibit secondary evidence, he would submit. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that there was no evidence that the originals were lost at the hands of the revision petitioners. There is no pleading as to whether those photocopies had been in fact taken from the originals which were allegedly lost. Further referring to the aforesaid decision he would submit that photocopies of the originals cannot be permitted to be exhibited during the course of trial. 7. As per Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence would include copies made from the original by the mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy. 8. It is well settled proposition of law that copies made from the original could be marked if the party who seeks to mark those documents proves two things; one is that the original is not at all available for exhibiting before the Court; second that original itself is admissible in evidence. 8. It is well settled proposition of law that copies made from the original could be marked if the party who seeks to mark those documents proves two things; one is that the original is not at all available for exhibiting before the Court; second that original itself is admissible in evidence. In other words, a copy of an inadmissible original document cannot be permitted to be marked in the garb of the provision under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9. Coming to the facts of this case, it has been categorically averred to by the revision petitioners that the originals of the affidavits given both by the defendants as well as by his predecessors-in-title were lost, but the photocopies taken therefrom are available in Court records. Therefore, it has been shown before the Court that the originals of the affidavits sought to be marked as secondary evidence have been lost. Secondly, on a careful perusal of the affidavits sought to be exhibited before the Court it is found that the said affidavits do not by itself convey any right in the immovable property. The original affidavits, if at all they are produced before the Court, are per se admissible in evidence. After all the photocopy is nothing but a copy obtained by mechanical process. Prima facie, the Court can conclude that such a copy taken through the mechanical process ensures the accuracy thereof. Therefore, in my considered view, the photocopies of the affidavits sought to be exhibited by the revision petitioners are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 63(2) of the Evidence Act. 10. Coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. J. Yashoda’s case referred to above, I find that the trial Court has completely misread the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Firstly, that was a case which has arisen out of filing a copy of the original when the original itself was available for exhibiting before the Court. In the order passed by the High Court which was the subject matter of civil appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. S. Yashoda’s case (supra) the Supreme Court, of course, made an observation that photocopies of the originals are not admissible in evidence. It will have to be seen under what circumstances such an observation has been made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. It will have to be seen under what circumstances such an observation has been made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. In the background of the fact that the original document was with one of the parties, an observation has been made by learned Single Judge of the High Court that a photocopy of the original which was with one of the parties cannot be sought to be marked in the garb of the provision under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in my view, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. J. Yashoda’s case (supra) would not apply to the facts of this case. 11. The revision petitioner is entitled to exhibit the photocopies of the affidavits alleged to have been sworn to by the defendants and predecessors-in-title by way of secondary evidence. 12. The revision is allowed setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. No cost. ---------0.B.S.0------------