Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rejection of Secondary Evidence Application in Civil Rent Dispute

Court affirms trial court's decision, emphasizing the stringent conditions under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for admitting secondary evidence.

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the Senior Civil Judge-II, Dehra, District Kangra, which dismissed an application to introduce secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner, Shri Vinod Kalia, sought to produce a photocopy of a rent agreement purportedly executed in 1991, which he claimed to have lost. However, the court found the application lacking in merit due to insufficient evidence supporting the loss or misplacement of the original document.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Nitin Soni, contended that the original rent agreement was executed between him and a certain Roshan Lal, who allegedly lost it. However, the trial court noted the absence of any affidavit from Roshan Lal or evidence substantiating the claim of loss. Furthermore, the trial court highlighted that the defendant had not presented any other evidence connecting the alleged agreement to the current proceedings.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, presiding over the matter, observed that the conditions for admitting secondary evidence as per Section 65 were not fulfilled. The court emphasized that secondary evidence could only be admitted if the original document was proven to be lost, admitted by the opposing party, or demonstrated to be in possession of a third party beyond the court's reach. In this case, the petitioner failed to meet these criteria.

The court also remarked on procedural delays, noting that the case had been pending since 2015, with minimal progress in recording evidence. The application for secondary evidence was filed three years after the trial began, raising concerns about potential attempts to delay the proceedings further.

Justice Goel concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the trial court's findings and dismissed the petition. This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for introducing secondary evidence, underscoring the necessity of concrete proof to substantiate claims of lost or unavailable original documents.

Bottom Line:

Application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence can only be allowed if the conditions under the provision are met, such as the existence or loss of the original document being sufficiently proved or admitted by the opposing party.

Statutory provision(s): Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Shri. Vinod Kalia v. Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812028