https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295893 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. en-us Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:59:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295893 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295893