Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2221 (MAD)

Revathy v. V. Chandra

2020-11-23

R.SUBRAMANIAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : R. Subramanian, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the 9th Defendant in O.S. No. 352 of 2007, challenging the Order of the Trial Court in I.A. No. 1069 of 2019 in O.S. No. 352 of 2007, refusing permission to mark certain documents. The learned Trial Judge rejected the Application on the ground that Certified copies were not filed certified as "True copies" as required under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. 2. I have heard Mr. Rajasekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Thiyagarajan learned Counsel for the Respondent. 3. The controversy is regarding the validity of the documents obtained by the Petitioner through RTI. Those documents were not certified as "True copies" as per the procedure contemplated under Section 76 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court on that ground rejected the documents. 4. Mr. Rajasekhar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would vehemently contend that since copies were issued by an Authority, who was Authorised to issue copies, the Trial Court erred in rejecting those documents. He would also rely upon Section 65 of the Evidence Act in support of his contention that copies of the documents could be received as Secondary Evidence. He would also draw attention of this Court to the definition of "Prescribed Authority" and "Public Authority" under Section 2 of Right to Information Act. He would also rely upon the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh, High Court, which dealt with the aspect of producing copies of the document as Secondary Evidence as per Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The next decision relied upon by the learned Counsel is also in respect of similar view which was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 5. The question does not pertain to issuance of a copy under the RTI Act. The question relates to the power of the Court to admit the documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Section 74 of the Evidence Act provides that Certified copies of Public documents issued by an Authority Authorised to issue copies should be endorsed as "True Copy". In the absence of such certification, Section 77 of the Evidence Act would not stand attracted. Section 65 provides that a Public document can be produced as Secondary evidence, which is admissible under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act. 6. In the absence of such certification, Section 77 of the Evidence Act would not stand attracted. Section 65 provides that a Public document can be produced as Secondary evidence, which is admissible under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act. 6. In the present case, the documents were not certified under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the learned Trial Court is right in rejecting the documents in terms of Section 76 of Evidence Act. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. It will be open to the Petitioner to get duly Certified copies of the documents and produce the same before the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall grant reasonable time to the Petitioner to produce such Certified copies.