1 2026:CGHC:22420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 575 of 2026 1 - Smt. Preeti Chadda W/o Shri Sandeep Chaddha Aged About 43 Years R/o Flat No. 2091, 9th Floor Sanskriti Apartment The Great Loyalpur Society Plot No. 35, Sector 10 Dwarika New Delhi, 75, Through Power Of Attorney Holder And Father Dr. I.M. Setthi, Aged About 84 Years, S/o Late Sitaram Setthi, R/o Civil Line Raipur ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - A.K. Hamidi (Now Death) Nil 1.1 - (A) Smt. Nasim Hamidi W/o Late A.K. Hamidi Aged About 59 Years R/o L.I.C. Colony Mova, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) As Per Cause Title 1.2 - (B) Rizwan Hamidi S/o Late A.K. Hamidi Aged About 38 Years R/o L.I.C. Colony Mova, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) As Per Cause Title 2 - Rehan Hamidi S/o Late A. K. Hamid Aged About 30 Years R/o Lic Colony Friends Nagar Mova, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present. 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 12/05/2026 Heard. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur in Civil Suit No.50- A/2018, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court and has instituted the suit seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing Khasra No.638/8 admeasuring 2400 sq.ft., situated at Village Mowa, Tahsil and District Raipur. It is contended that during pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed a photocopy/xerox copy of the revenue map along with an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence to prove the said document. However, the said application came to be rejected by the learned trial Court. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already applied before the competent Revenue Authority for issuance of certified copy of the said revenue map, but despite such application, the certified copy SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.14 11:58:14 +0530 3 has not been supplied till date. Owing to such non-availability of the certified copy, the petitioner could not place the same before the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the revenue map is a material document necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit and, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be permitted to prove the xerox copy thereof by leading secondary evidence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner is seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of a xerox copy of the revenue map annexed with the petition. From perusal of the said document, it appears to be a copy of the revenue map allegedly issued by the concerned Patwari. The original thereof admittedly forms part of the official record maintained by the Revenue Authorities and the petitioner is legally entitled to obtain a certified copy of the same from the competent authority. 6. The learned trial Court, while rejecting the application, has recorded that the xerox copy sought to be produced has neither been verified nor compared with the original document. A mere photocopy/xerox copy of a document, which is not authenticated or certified in accordance with law, cannot ipso facto be treated as admissible secondary evidence within the meaning of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. It is further evident that the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act have also 4 not been satisfactorily complied with by the petitioner before seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence. In absence of foundational facts necessary for admission of secondary evidence, the learned trial Court was justified in declining the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. Upon due consideration of the impugned order, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge