A No. 794 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A No. 794 of 2026 in TOS NO. 11 OF 2003 1. Shanthi Rajasekaran 2. R.Vignes Kumaar alias R.Vignesh ..Applicant(s) Vs Premalatha Vasudevan Pillai (Deceased) V.Rajasekaran (Deceased) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER – This Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules, read with Rule 151 of C.P.C. read with Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of C.P.C., to grant leave to the Applicant to file the additional document which are annexed in the list for the evidence of defendants 3 and 4. For Applicant(s): Mr.Manivasagam Associates For Respondent(s): Ms.Charishma.V for Ms.V.Srimathi O R D E R This Application is filed seeking leave to the applicant to file the additional documents which are annexed in the list for the evidence of defendants 3 and 4. The affidavit filed in support of the application itself states that what is sought to be produced are only xerox copies of those documents. __________ Page1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 794 of 2026 2.The averments in support of the application are that the documents which are sought to be marked as evidences were misplaced and hence, could not be marked along with the written statement. After great hardship, the documents are traced and are now sought to be marked as evidences through D.W.3 and D.W.4. On that basis, the defendants 3 and 4 seeks permission to file the said xerox copies as additional documents, since regarding the genuineness of the alleged will dated 08.12.2000, the additional documentary evidences are necessary. 3.Though counter is not filed by the learned counsel for the respondent, they opposed the filing of additional documents stating that all the documents are xerox copies, which do not amount to secondary evidences. 4.This Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought. What is admittedly sought to be received are only xerox copies. In the absence of a proper case made out for reception of secondary evidence, xerox copies cannot be received as additional documents merely on request. The affidavit does not set out the necessary particulars for bringing the case within Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. A mere xerox copy of a document cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in the absence of foundational proof satisfying Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. [H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240] Therefore, the prayer to receive the said xerox copies as additional documents cannot be entertained. __________ Page2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 794 of 2026 5.Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. No costs. 24-07-2026 GSA (1/2) __________ Page3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 794 of 2026 DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. GSA A No. 794 of 2026 in TOS NO. 11 OF 2003 24-07-2026 (1/2) __________ Page4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis