Secondary evidence and notice requirements govern admissibility of xerox copies, with limited supervisory correction under Article 227.

Xerox copies may be received as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act, but only where a proper factual foundation is laid for non-production of the originals and the copy's evidentiary value is assessed in context. A sworn explanation that the originals were lost during shifting of records was treated as sufficient at the stage of seeking leave. Where the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the opposite party or another person bound to produce it, notice under Section 66 is mandatory before admission. Absence of separate permission under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC did not, by itself, defeat the request for secondary evidence. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 justified only limited modification, not blanket interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether xerox copies can constitute secondary evidence; (ii) whether loss of the originals was sufficiently proved; (iii) whether notice under Section 66 was required before receiving the documents in evidence; (iv) whether absence of permission under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred the request; (v) whether the order warranted interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether xerox copies can constitute secondary evidence.

Analysis: Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act recognises copies made by mechanical process as secondary evidence, but their reception depends on the nature of the document, the surrounding circumstances, and the probative value of the copy. Admission of such copies does not amount to proof of their contents.

Conclusion: Xerox copies can, in an appropriate case, be received as secondary evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether loss of the originals was sufficiently proved.

Analysis: The party seeking secondary evidence must lay a factual foundation showing non-production of the original. A sworn affidavit explaining that the documents were lost during shifting of office records was treated as sufficient in the circumstances, especially at the stage of seeking leave to adduce evidence.

Conclusion: The loss of the originals was sufficiently proved for the purpose of receiving secondary evidence.

Issue (iii): Whether notice under Section 66 was required before receiving the documents in evidence.

Analysis: Section 65(a) applies where the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the opposite party or another person bound to produce it, and in such cases notice under Section 66 is necessary. The documents fell into different categories: some were expected to be with the respondent, some with the petitioner, and some were correspondence between third parties. Notice was therefore necessary for documents covered by Section 65(a), while others could not be received without complying with that requirement.

Conclusion: Notice under Section 66 was required for documents falling within Section 65(a), and those documents could not be admitted without compliance.

Issue (iv): Whether absence of permission under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred the request.

Analysis: The request was only to adduce secondary evidence. Permission for late filing of documents under Order 7 Rule 14, if necessary, could be sought separately after leave to lead secondary evidence was granted. That omission did not by itself justify rejection of the application.

Conclusion: The application was not liable to be dismissed on that ground.

Issue (v): Whether the order warranted interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Supervisory jurisdiction is limited to keeping subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and is not meant for routine correction of errors. Since some documents were properly admissible and others were not, the order admitting all documents in toto required modification rather than total interference.

Conclusion: Limited interference was justified to the extent of restricting admissibility to the documents supported by the legal requirements.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified by allowing secondary evidence only in respect of the identified documents that satisfied the governing requirements, while excluding the remaining documents that did not.

Ratio Decidendi: Xerox copies may be admitted as secondary evidence only when the party lays a proper factual foundation for non-production of the original, and where the original is shown or appears to be in the possession of the opposite party or another person bound to produce it, notice under Section 66 is mandatory before admission.

---