The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical threshold for admitting photocopies as secondary evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, reinforcing that mere submission of a photocopy without proof of its origin or comparison with the original is legally insufficient. This ruling reasserts the foundational requirements for evidentiary admissibility in civil proceedings and provides binding guidance for trial courts across the state.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Civil Suit No. RCS-A/102/2023 was filed on 17.04.2023 by respondents No. 1 to 17 (plaintiffs) before the trial court seeking a declaration of their 1/4th share in a disputed property and cancellation of a sale deed. The suit involved competing claims over inherited property, with the plaintiffs relying on two wills - dated 29.07.1998 executed by Halima Bee and 15.07.2004 executed by Jannat Bee - in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. The issues in the suit were framed on 27.03.2025, and the matter proceeded to the stage of recording plaintiffs’ evidence.
Key Facts
- The plaintiffs sought to tender photocopies of the two wills as secondary evidence under Section 65-C of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was later corrected to Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- The photocopies were filed without any affidavit or statement establishing their provenance.
- No assertion was made that the photocopies were:
- Made from the original by a mechanical process ensuring accuracy
- Compared with the original document
- Certified under statutory provisions
- The trial court allowed the application on 11.11.2025 without examining compliance with Section 58.
Procedural History
- 17.04.2023: Civil Suit No. RCS-A/102/2023 filed by plaintiffs
- 27.03.2025: Issues framed by the trial court
- 07.11.2025: Plaintiffs filed application seeking admission of photocopies as secondary evidence
- 11.11.2025: Trial court allowed the application without requiring proof of mechanical origin or comparison
- 17.03.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 227 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order
Relief Sought
The petitioner, defendant No. 4, sought setting aside of the trial court’s order dated 11.11.2025, arguing that the photocopies did not satisfy the statutory conditions under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and requested that the application be reconsidered in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a photocopy of a will can be admitted as secondary evidence under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 without proof that it was either (i) mechanically produced from the original or (ii) compared with the original document.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in admitting the photocopies without satisfying the mandatory conditions under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. He emphasized that the application contained no averment that the photocopies were:
- Generated by a mechanical process ensuring accuracy
- Compared with the original
- Certified under statutory provisions
He relied on Ravi Kumar Bajpai v. Shakuntala Devi & Ors., 2017 (1) M.P.L.J. 692, where the same Bench held that unless both conditions - mechanical production and comparison - are established, the document cannot qualify as secondary evidence.
For the Respondent
No counter-arguments were presented by the respondents in the petition, as the judgment does not record any submissions from the plaintiffs or their counsel opposing the writ petition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual analysis of Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which enumerates the categories of secondary evidence. The provision explicitly requires that copies admitted under clause (ii) must be:
"(ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies"
The Court observed that the trial court’s order was silent on whether the photocopies met either of these two conditions. No affidavit, no certification, and no statement of comparison were placed on record. The mere filing of a photocopy, without more, does not satisfy the statutory mandate.
The Court relied on its own coordinate Bench’s decision in Ravi Kumar Bajpai (supra), which held:
"Unless it is established that (a) the copies are made from the original by mechanical process and (b) copies are compared with original documents will not be included under the expression secondary evidence."
The Court noted that the trial court’s failure to apply this test amounted to a clear error of law, amounting to a jurisdictional flaw under Article 227. The admission of evidence without compliance with statutory conditions undermines the integrity of the trial process and violates the principle of fair procedure.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 11.11.2025 is set aside. The trial court is directed to reconsider the application for admission of photocopies strictly in accordance with Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the ruling in Ravi Kumar Bajpai (supra). The court must afford a full opportunity of hearing to both parties before deciding the application. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the trial court within 10 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Photocopies Require Provenance, Not Just Submission
- Practitioners must now file a sworn affidavit or statement along with photocopies, specifying whether they were mechanically produced or compared with the original
- Trial courts must record explicit findings on compliance with Section 58 before admitting any photocopy as secondary evidence
- Failure to do so renders the evidence inadmissible and opens the order to writ jurisdiction under Article 227
Section 58 ESA Overrides Old Evidence Act Interpretations
-
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
-
Any reliance on pre-2023 interpretations of Section 65-C is now legally obsolete
-
Courts must apply the new statutory framework strictly, even in pending proceedings
-
Always verify the source of the photocopy before filing
-
Never assume that a photocopy is admissible without express compliance with Section 58(ii)
-
Use certified copies under Section 58(i) where possible to avoid evidentiary disputes
