JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to call for the records pertaining to Exhibits P4, P6 and P9 applications submitted by him before the statutory authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Exhibit P16 communication issued by the Public Information Officer, Village Officer, Kakkanad informing him that the records sought for by him are not available in the Village Office, Kakkanad and to issue a writ directing the respondents to take action immediately on Exhibit P4 application submitted by the petitioner before the Public Information Officer, Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk dated 11.02.2009 and also to issue the certified copies of the documents mentioned therein, to the petitioner. 2. Basic facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is allegedly the owner of a property having an extent of 10 cents in Survey No. 449/1-2 of Thrikkakara South Village by virtue of Exhibit P1 patta bearing No. B6.LA.191/84 dated 08.04.1984 and Exhibit P2 order of assignment dated 08.04.1986. According to the petitioner, one Major P. Abraham has filed O.S No. 46 of 2009 against the petitioner and one K.J. Joseph before the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner from forcibly evicting them from the above-said property and also for a mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to put them back to the said property, evident from Exhibit P3, copy of the plaint. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid K.J. Joseph, who is the second defendant in the suit, has also filed O.S. No. 50 of 2009 against one P.T. Abraham, the father of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 46 of 2009, claiming title and possession over the property in question before the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam and both suits are pending consideration. 3. The sum and substance of the contention is that the proof with regard to the title of the property is one of the prime issues to be adjudicated by the civil court. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P4 application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Additional Tahsildar, respondent No. 1, seeking certified copies of the documents relating to title. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P4 application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Additional Tahsildar, respondent No. 1, seeking certified copies of the documents relating to title. However, it was not issued to the petitioner and therefore, he preferred Exhibit P6 appeal before the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, second respondent and Exhibit P9 appeal before the State Information Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No. 3. 4. The case projected by the petitioner is that even though the said appeals were duly considered by the concerned authorities-the respondents, no proper action has been taken by them in the said application and appeals, which persuaded him to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. In spite of the pendency of this writ petition, for the past more than 9 years, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Joby Joseph for the respondents. 6. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner is violative of the express provisions of the Act, 2005 and against the true spirit and mandate of the provisions of the said statute. It is further contended that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents in furnishing the documents sought for by the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is no justification in pretending ignorance with regard to the file containing the details of the property. 7. That apart, it is predominantly contended that the respondents have no case that they have destroyed any files containing the details of the property and other details which are sought for by the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that Exhibit P5 reply given to Exhibit P4 application is self explanatory and the petitioner was informed that the Additional Tahsildar, in spite of the search made, could not locate the file relating to the patta issued to the petitioner and therefore, he was requested to prefer any appeal, if he is aggrieved by the said order. 8. 8. However, when Exhibit P6 appeal was preferred before the second respondent, the Additional Tahsildar, as per Exhibit P7 communication dated 15.07.2009, informed the petitioner that the copy of the document could not be furnished, since on search he could not locate the files; and in spite of that, necessary verification is done in the Section and the petitioner would be informed with regard to the development in that regard. 9. Anyhow, as per Exhibit P8 communication dated 21.08.2009, the appellate authority i.e. the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, informed the petitioner that on verification and enquiry, the file could not be located and therefore, the information sought for by him cannot be provided. In Exhibit P9 appeal preferred by the petitioner before the State Information Commission, as per Exhibit P10 order dated 17.04.2011 in A.P. 1077(2)/2009/SIC, the third respondent, informed the petitioner that the Additional Tahsildar was present before the Commission, when the evidence was taken and he has submitted that he had taken charge two months before and after the verification of the files, necessary information can be provided to the petitioner, and therefore, the appeal was closed by the Commission. 10. Anyhow, it seems, the petitioner has again filed A.P. No. 1442(5)/2009/SIC before the State Information Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, as per which the Tahsildar was directed to be present before the Commission on 31.05.2011, as is evident from Exhibit P11 communication dated 20.05.2011, copy of which is provided to the petitioner and later, as per Exhibit P12 order dated 31.05.2011 the petitioner was informed that the Tahsildar is directed to furnish copies of the documents to the petitioner within 30 days. 11. It is also evident from Exhibit P13 notice dated 02.06.2011 issued by the State Information Officer in A.P. No. 1077(2)/2009/SIC dated 02.06.2011 that the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk was directed to appear before the Commissioner, Sri. Sony Thengamom on 17.06.2011 at 11.15 p.m. Anyhow, Exhibit P14 information dated 13.06.2011 was issued by the Village Officer, Kakkanad informing that the petitioner has paid tax for the entire property in question having the old Survey No. 449/1-2 and old thandaper number 403(1117) for an extent of 10 cents of property for the periods 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. Sony Thengamom on 17.06.2011 at 11.15 p.m. Anyhow, Exhibit P14 information dated 13.06.2011 was issued by the Village Officer, Kakkanad informing that the petitioner has paid tax for the entire property in question having the old Survey No. 449/1-2 and old thandaper number 403(1117) for an extent of 10 cents of property for the periods 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. Later, the Deputy Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, has issued Exhibit P15 communication dated 18.05.2012 informing that the directions are issued to the Village Officer of Vazhakkala, Kakkanad to do the necessary in the application submitted by the petitioner. 12. Anyhow, later as per Exhibit P16 communication dated 12.06.2012, the Village Officer, Kakkanad has informed the petitioner that in spite of the earnest efforts made, the documents sought for by the petitioner could not be located and therefore, the information was unable to be provided within the time, since an in depth enquiry was being made by the said authority. 13. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. It is true, as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, all citizens shall have the right to get the information, subject to the provisions of the Act. It is also equally important to note that the documents sought for by the petitioner i.e. the copy of the patta, is not a document exempted from the disclosure of the information. However, the documents could not be issued to the petitioner for the basic reason that the files relating to the patta are not available in the office of the Village Officer, Thrikkakara or the office of the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk. Anyhow, from Exhibit P14 dated 13.06.2011, it is evident that the Village Officer, Kakkanad has informed that the property in question is included in the thandaper number mentioned above and tax was accepted for the period from 1993-1994 to 1995-1996. 14. Whatever that be, the petitioner has not projected any case of mala-fides or callous negligence on the part of the respondents in providing information to the petitioner. The deliberation made above would make it clear that, despite the directions issued by the appellate authorities, on verification of the records, the information sought by the petitioner could not be located. 14. Whatever that be, the petitioner has not projected any case of mala-fides or callous negligence on the part of the respondents in providing information to the petitioner. The deliberation made above would make it clear that, despite the directions issued by the appellate authorities, on verification of the records, the information sought by the petitioner could not be located. Now, it can be seen that the issue raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is largely surrounded by various factual circumstances and this Court will not be in a position to ascertain the veracity of the reply given by the authority as well as the appellate authorities in order to arrive at a logical conclusion in the matter. 15. Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that two suits filed by different parties are pending consideration before the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam. Even according to the petitioner, the contentions raised in those suits would make it clear that it is regarding the title concerning the property in question. 16. As per Order XIV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, civil court is vested with powers, where the Court is of opinion that the issues cannot be correctly framed without the examination of some person not before the Court or without the inspection of some document not produced in the suit, it may adjourn the framing of the issues to a day not later than 7 days and may subject to any law for the time being in force, compel the attendance of any person or the production of any document by the person in whose possession or power it is, by summons or other process. 17. That apart, as per Order XV1 Rule 4B, any civil court is vested with powers to summon any officer of the Government for adducing evidence or to produce the documents in its or his public capacity. As per Order XVI Rule 6, the civil court is vested with the powers to summon to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence. Above all, though as per Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, documents must be proved by primary evidence, exceptions are provided under Section 65 of the Act, 1872, and they read thus: “64. Proof of documents by primary evidence - Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. 65. Above all, though as per Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, documents must be proved by primary evidence, exceptions are provided under Section 65 of the Act, 1872, and they read thus: “64. Proof of documents by primary evidence - Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. 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 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. (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest. (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence. (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible.” In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 18. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 18. It may be true that, for the requirement of Section 65 (e) r/w Section 74 of the Act 1872, no document other than a certified copy of the secondary evidence would be admissible in evidence. Still, the fact remains, even according to the authority, the records could not be located to issue a certified copy. Therefore, it can be seen that a competent civil court is vested with ample powers under Section 65 of the Act, 1872 to receive secondary evidence, taking into account various attendant circumstances as contained in the said provision. It is apparent that the petitioner is a party in the suit proceedings and therefore, he is at liberty to file an appropriate application and call for the records from the Village/Taluk Office concerned or prove the said fact otherwise. By discussing so, I only intend to say that the petitioner is not without a remedy to establish his case before the court, where the suits are pending trial or before any other court where the issue is pending consideration. 19. Taking into account the above factual and legal circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted. 20. Needless to say, writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the liberty of the petitioner is left open to make any suitable application in the pending suit proceedings to summon any documents or to prove any documents available at hand by law and that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter or rival interests of the parties.