Admissibility of secondary evidence fails where a photocopy lacks authenticity and cannot be proved through municipal records.

A party seeking to place on record and prove a photocopy of an alleged letter by summoning municipal records was denied relief because the application was moved nearly eight years after the suit without any satisfactory explanation. The document was only a photocopy, with no stamp, signature, or receipt endorsement to support authenticity, and it therefore did not inspire confidence. A photocopy of a copy was treated as inadmissible under the Evidence Act, and where the original document could not be proved in evidence, there was no purpose in taking it on record. The application was accordingly held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to place on record and prove a photocopy of an alleged letter by summoning the record from the municipal office.

Analysis: The application was moved nearly eight years after institution of the suit, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The document sought to be produced was only a photocopy, lacking indicia of authenticity such as stamp, signature, or receipt endorsement, and therefore did not inspire confidence. A photocopy of a copy is not admissible as evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, and if the document itself could not be proved in evidence, no purpose would be served by taking it on record.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---