The Karnataka High Court has clarified that a xerox copy of a critical document, such as an agreement of sale, may be admitted in evidence when the original is lost due to administrative failure by the court’s registry, provided no evidence of tampering is established. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural lapses by court staff should not deprive a litigant of substantive rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, H. Satyanarayana Setty, filed Original Suit No. 27/2013 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.05.2012. The petitioners, A.C. Pradeepkumar, M.B. Gangambike, A.C. Hemanth, and A.S. Basavaraju, denied the execution of the agreement in their written statement. The dispute centered on whether the agreement was genuine and enforceable.
Key Facts
- The respondent produced the original agreement of sale dated 14.05.2012 along with the plaint on filing.
- On 05.08.2013, the trial court ordered the Court Master Officer (CMO) to keep the original agreement in safe custody.
- During the course of trial, when the court sought to produce the original document for examination, it could not be located.
- The respondent filed a memo on 26.02.2021, accompanied by a xerox copy of the agreement, seeking permission to mark it in evidence.
- The petitioners filed objections alleging possible manipulation of content and denial of authenticity of signatures on the xerox copy.
- The trial court permitted the xerox copy to be marked without conducting an independent inquiry into the loss of the original.
Procedural History
- 14.05.2012: Execution of the agreement of sale.
- 05.08.2013: Trial court orders CMO to keep original agreement in safe custody.
- 26.02.2021: Trial court permits xerox copy of agreement to be marked in evidence.
- 17.06.2021: Writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order permitting the xerox copy.
- 17.06.2026: Karnataka High Court hears the writ petition and delivers judgment.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the trial court’s order dated 26.02.2021 permitting the xerox copy, arguing that its admission violated the Evidence Act and prejudiced their defense. They also sought directions for an inquiry into the loss of the original document.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the trial court erred in permitting the xerox copy of the agreement of sale to be marked in evidence, in the absence of an inquiry into the circumstances of the original’s loss and without verifying its authenticity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the admission of a xerox copy without verifying its fidelity to the original violated Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which governs admissibility of electronic records and secondary evidence. They argued that the trial court was obligated to conduct an inquiry into how the original was lost, who was responsible, and whether the xerox copy had been altered. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Damu and Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, which held that secondary evidence cannot be admitted without a satisfactory explanation for the absence of the original.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the original document was duly filed and placed in court custody as per the court’s own order dated 05.08.2013. The loss was due to administrative negligence by court staff, not any fault of the plaintiff. The xerox copy produced was identical to the one originally filed and had been in public record since filing. No evidence of tampering was presented by the petitioners. The trial court’s decision was a pragmatic measure to prevent prejudice to the plaintiff due to the court’s own failure.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture and the nature of the loss. It noted that the original agreement was not merely misplaced by a party but was under the exclusive custody of the court, as recorded in the order sheet dated 05.08.2013. The Court emphasized that the loss was not attributable to the plaintiff, who had acted in good faith by producing the original at the outset.
"The trial Court rightly permitted the xerox copy to be marked, as the plaintiff had no control over the misplacement of the original document, which was under the court’s own custody."
The Court held that Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act permits secondary evidence when the original is lost or destroyed without bad faith on the part of the party seeking to produce it. The burden of proving tampering lay with the petitioners, who failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their allegations. The Court further observed that the trial court’s decision was not arbitrary but a necessary step to ensure continuity of justice.
The Court also noted that the trial court had already reported the incident to the District Court and the High Court, indicating awareness of the lapse. The Court directed that an appropriate inquiry be conducted by the District Court to determine responsibility for the loss, but clarified that such an inquiry could not retroactively invalidate the evidence already admitted.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Karnataka High Court upheld the trial court’s order permitting the xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 14.05.2012 to be marked in evidence. The Court directed the District Court to conduct a formal inquiry into the misplacement of the original document and to take disciplinary action against responsible officials, if found. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Secondary Evidence Is Admissible When Loss Is Not Party’s Fault
- Practitioners may rely on xerox copies or other secondary evidence when the original is lost due to court administrative failure, provided the party produced the original at the outset.
- The burden shifts to the opposing party to prove tampering or fabrication - mere suspicion is insufficient.
Courts Must Act Proactively on Internal Losses
- Trial courts must immediately report loss of court-held documents to higher judicial authorities.
- Failure to report may lead to disciplinary proceedings against registry staff, but does not invalidate evidence already admitted.
Procedural Lapses Do Not Nullify Substantive Rights
- A litigant’s right to prove their case cannot be defeated by the negligence of court staff.
- Courts must prioritize justice over rigid adherence to form when the loss is external to the parties.
