https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276369 The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the lower court's order permitting the plaintiff to produce secondary evidence without issuing a notice as required under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. It was emphasized that the document in question must meet the definition of secondary evidence under Section 63, which was not established in this case. The court found the lower court's decision flawed due to the absence of a notice to the party in possession of the original document and the lack of evidence showing the photostat copy's origin from the original assessment order. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. en-us Mon, 02 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 12:46:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276369 The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the lower court's order permitting the plaintiff to produce secondary evidence without issuing a notice as required under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. It was emphasized that the document in question must meet the definition of secondary evidence under Section 63, which was not established in this case. The court found the lower court's decision flawed due to the absence of a notice to the party in possession of the original document and the lack of evidence showing the photostat copy's origin from the original assessment order. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276369