Insufficiently Stamped Document Photocopies Inadmissible as Secondary Evidence”

Insufficiently Stamped Document Photocopies Inadmissible as Secondary Evidence”In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upheld a crucial legal precedent, ruling that photocopies of insufficiently stamped documents cannot be admitted as secondary evidence, even when fees and penalties are paid. The decision, rendered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH on November 20, 2023, sheds light on the importance of adhering to established legal principles.

The case, which centered around a dispute over passage obstruction, involved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, contested the admissibility of an agreement to sell dated 11.3.2011 as secondary evidence. The key contention was that the photocopy of the agreement displayed insufficient stamping.

The Court’s decision hinged on a significant legal reference, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash Chand Malviya (2007(4) RCR (Civil) 548). In that case, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that photocopies of documents not adequately stamped could not be accepted as secondary evidence, even if the required fee and penalty were paid. The Court emphasized that the process of impounding documents could only apply to the original, not its copies.

In light of this established legal principle, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 10.8.2016, known as Annexure P-6, and vacated the interim order dated 24.9.2016. The learned trial Court was directed to proceed expeditiously with the trial, and both parties were instructed to appear for further proceedings on the next fixed date in the suit.

Date of Decision: 20.11.2023

Kuldeep Singh VS Tej Kaur and another