1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has sought for leave of this Court for deletion of Article 226 from the provision of Law under which, this writ petition has been filed. 2. In view of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, is directed to make necessary correction in provision of Law, in course of the day. 3. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 09.04.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.100 of 2012, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the petition dated 04.04.2012 praying therein to mark exhibit the document filed as per the list dated 04.04.2019 and further to mark exhibit paper cutting of Hindi Daily Newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” dated 09.01.2011 filed on behalf of the applicant, has been rejected. 4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that a compensation case being Compensation Case No.100 of 2012 has been filed by one Basanti Tirkey against M/s United Engineering Works, the petitioner herein before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi through a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claim for compensation of Rs.51,10,000/- was made as it was alleged that the said Pradeep Kumar Tirkey, the husband of the Basanti Tirkey riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.JH 01AB 1504 on 07.01.2011 at about 7.30 in the morning got dashed by a truck bearing registration no.BR 14G 1504 (Truck 709) and ultimately succumbed to injury. The petitioner has been impleaded as opposite party no.1 in the said execution case, an FIR was also instituted before the Jagarnathpur police station being P.S. Case No.04/2011, corresponding to G.R. No.145/2011 registered against the driver of the offending truck and the police have submitted charge-sheet after investigation. The petitioner, opposite party no.1 before the tribunal has filed written statement denying the involvement of the said truck in the said accident. The criminal case ultimately, although has been resulted into acquittal on the ground that the witnesses have deposed therein that they have not seen the accused. The petitioner has filed a petition on 04.04.2019 (annexure-5) praying therein to mark the information submitted before the concerned police station dated 11.01.2011 with respect to non-involvement of the vehicle as also the paper cutting as exhibited. 5. The petitioner has filed a petition on 04.04.2019 (annexure-5) praying therein to mark the information submitted before the concerned police station dated 11.01.2011 with respect to non-involvement of the vehicle as also the paper cutting as exhibited. 5. Rejoinder to the said petition has been filed by the claimant inter-alia taking the plea therein that after institution of the FIR before the Jagarnathpur Police Station against the driver of the vehicle in question against which, the charge-sheet has also been submitted and for release of the said vehicle, a petition was filed on 21.01.2011 which was released in favour of the opposite party on 31.01.2011 but no reference of information dated 31.01.2011 was taken therein and further no evidence ever has been produced for taking point of non-involvement of the vehicle. Further on the ground that there is no endorsement on receipt of the information letter dated 11.01.2011 by any of the authority of the concerned police station and as such it cannot be marked as exhibit. Upon such contention raised by the parties, the claim tribunal has passed order, rejecting the aforesaid petition against which, the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to provision of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, wherein the definition of evidence has been stipulated which means and includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters to fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence and therefore, the documents even if or the document needs to be adjudicated, even if no endorsement of any of the authority of the concerned police station cannot be treated to be not a evidence within the meaning of definition of evidence as stipulated under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. He, in order to substantiate his argument has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vrs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1 . 6. He, in order to substantiate his argument has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vrs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1 . 6. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the finding recorded therein, deem it fit and proper first to narrate about the brief history of the case as would appear from the case of the motor accident claim which is of the year 2012 and earlier to this writ petition, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.299 of 2019 was filed, wherein an order passed on 06.12.2018 in the Claim Case No.100 of 2012 which is also the subject matter of the writ petition by which, the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, opposite party no.1 for issuance of summon to the witnesses as per the list and further filed notice to Mr. Vimal Kumar Verma, advocate for the claimant to file owner book and insurance policy and the said petition having been rejected, hence the writ petition was filed but the same was withdrawn as would appear from the order dated 25.02.2019 passed in the aforesaid writ petition and another petition was filed on 04.04.2019 which is the subject matter of the present writ petition for marking exhibit of the copy of the information dated 11.01.2011 and paper publication made in the “Prabhat Khabar”. Reference of the earlier writ petition has been given particularly for the reason that the motor claim tribunal has been established for expeditious disposal of the claim but as would transpires from the conduct of the petitioner, time and again the different petitions are being filed that is nothing but to delay the proceeding. This aspect of the matter constrained to be stipulated herein, since the petitioner has also filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.299 of 2019 but no such petition has been filed for seeking prayer of marking the exhibit of document dated 11.01.2011 as also the paper cutting. So far as the marking of the exhibit of the said paper cutting, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that he is not pressing the paper cutting. He is only pressing the petition dated 11.01.2011 to be marked as exhibit. 7. So far as the marking of the exhibit of the said paper cutting, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that he is not pressing the paper cutting. He is only pressing the petition dated 11.01.2011 to be marked as exhibit. 7. It is evident from the application dated 11.01.2011 as has been annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition which has been written by the petitioner addressed to the Officer-In-Charge but prior to filing of the petition, no such stand about giving the information to the concerned police station has ever been brought and that aspect of the matter has been agitated by the claimant in her rejoinder inter-alia stating therein that if there was availability of petition dated 11.01.2011, why such petition has not been filed at the time of release of the vehicle by taking such plea and this aspect of the matter does suggest its intention only and by way of after-thought. 8. So far as the admissibility of the document dated 11.01.2011 is concerned as would appear from the said document that there is no endorsement of any of the authority of the concerned police station rather it has been issued under the signature of the petitioner addressed to the Officer-In-Charge, hence, the question arises that without any endorsement of any of the competent authority of the concerned police station how the veracity of the said document would be proved. 9. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, any document if insisted to be brought on record would be treated to be evidence as per the definition of evidence as contained under Section 3 of the Evidence Act but as would appear from the reading of the definition of the evidence as provided under Section 3 of the Evidence Act which transpires that the evidence means and includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters to fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence and all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence. Sub definition no.2 under the definition of evidence which talks about the documentary evidence under the said category where the letter dated 11.01.2011 would come or not? Sub definition no.2 under the definition of evidence which talks about the documentary evidence under the said category where the letter dated 11.01.2011 would come or not? This is the question which has been agitated by the petitioner. The proof of contents of documents as has been provided under Section 61 may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. 10. It is not in dispute that Section 61 of the Evidence Act mandates that the contents of the documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence and as per the definition of primary evidence as defined under Section 62 which means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court and the same would be said to be produced in original to prove its contents. The secondary evidence of contents of written instrument cannot be given reliance without its corroboration from its original. It is the general rule that secondary evidence is not admissible until the non-production of the primary evidence is satisfactorily proved. Secondary evidence has been defined under Section 63. 11. It is not in dispute that the primary evidence is the best evidence. The Secondary evidence or documents can be allowed to be laid down only when original is proved to be existed but was lost or misplaced and until loss of the document is proved, secondary evidence thereof is not admissible in evidence. It is also not in dispute that the certified copies of public documents as has been defined under Section 76, are admissible as secondary evidence only if they are issued by the competent authority and admission of Xerox copy attested by notary public is in proper and in admissible in evidence. Further, the copy or copy of the documents not compared with original document, is not admissible in evidence, for example where the party produced the Xerox copy of the money receipt showing payment of rent and pleaded that he lost the original receipt but no evidence to substantiate the plea, Xerox copy cannot be accepted in evidence, therefore, Xerox copy/photo-copy itself would not become secondary evidence unless it is shown that, it is an accurate copy of the original. Likewise a newspaper report without any further proof has no value, although can be taken into account with other evidence, if the other evidence is plausible. 12. Likewise a newspaper report without any further proof has no value, although can be taken into account with other evidence, if the other evidence is plausible. 12. This Court in view of the aforesaid position of law and looking to the order dated 11.01.2011 which is the self written letter to the Officer-In-Charge regarding non-involvement of the vehicle showing the reasons therein but the question is that while not marking it as an exhibit whether the trial Court has committed illegality or not? As has been stipulated hereinabove that the document can be considered as primary or secondary evidence. The primary evidence would be the original one while secondary evidence of copy of the said original one, if available for its corroboration and in the light of this said position of law even if the letter dated 11.01.2011 will be allowed to be marked as exhibit question would be, how its genuineness would be proved, since there is no endorsement of its receiving by any of the authority of the concerned police station and therefore, it cannot be treated even for secondary evidence. Further as would appear from the reply filed by the claimant that the said document has never been brought on record at the time of release of the vehicle and if involvement of the vehicle is itself in dispute due to its non-availability on the date of occurrence, then according to this Court, the said document would be of paramount importance but this Court failed to understand that why such document has not been brought on record earlier to the petition filed on 04.04.2019 and therefore the admissibility of the said document itself is not acceptable in absence of its corroboration from any authority showing its endorsement on receipt and if it would be allowed to be marked, it is nothing but sheer wastage of the Court’s time that to after lapse of about seven years from filing of the claim case and as such, keeping the spirit of constitution of accident claim tribunal which is in the nature of holding an inquiry under Section 168 subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow some summary procedure as it thinks fit and therefore, as per the provision made under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which expressly empowers the claim tribunal to formulate its own procedure in holding an inquiry under Section 168 of the Act in order to follow such summary procedure and the intention behind is that the inquiry should not take shape of elaborate and long drawn proceeding as a regular civil suit but be concluded as much speedily as possible. The nature of inquiry more or less like a judicial inquiry and therefore, keeping the said object and intent of the constitution of the motor vehicle tribunal and also taking into consideration the fact that the application dated 11.01.2011 has not been allowed to be marked as an exhibit, in view of the fact that its genuineness cannot be proved and in absence thereof it has got no evidentiary value and accordingly taking the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court has rejected the petition, therefore, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed rather the Court is constrained to come to the impression that the petitioner is only trying to delay the matter. 13. 13. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court directs the tribunal to dispose of the compensation case being Compensation Case No.100 of 2012 within a period of three months’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.