Oral judgment:

1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Advocate Mr. Santimano waives service on behalf of the Respondents.

3. This Writ Petition stands revived in terms of order dated 06.08.2026 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 350 of 2026. The Writ Petition is revived only to the extent of the challenge to order dated 16.02.2024 on Exhibit D-43, passed by the District Court, North Goa at Merces, Tiswadi, Goa in Civil Suit No. 10/2018.

4. The impugned order dismisses the Petitioner’s application at Exhibit D-43 seeking production of a carbon copy of the document, which is purported to be a Deed of Sale dated 18.06.1985 as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

5. It is Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s case that though he has acquired title to the suit property bearing Survey No. 4 and has been put in possession thereof by the Defendants pursuant to the execution of the Deed of Sale dated 18.06.1985, which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar at Ponda. According to the averments made in the earlier application under which the Petitioner was allowed to produce a photocopy of the Receipt Form-T, issued by the Sub Registrar, the Deed of Sale executed before Respondent No. 6/ Sub Registrar at Ponda was presented for presentation on 02.04.1986 under the said Receipt. Since that Receipt has been misplaced, secondary evidence was sought to be produced in the form of a photocopy of the Receipt, which was ultimately allowed.

6. Subsequently, thereto, since the original of the Sale Deed was not in the possession of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff claimed that it was in the possession of the Sub Registrar, a notice was issued under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, which is dated 15.02.2022 to the Sub Registrar calling upon him to produce the original of the document. In reply to this notice, by communication dated 04.03.2022, the Sub Registrar informed the Plaintiff that on a search carried out of the record, the document was not traceable in the office.

7. It is under these circumstances that the application at Exhibit D-43, seeking to produce a carbon copy of the document in secondary evidence came to be filed before the Trial Court. According to the application, since the Plaintiff was allowed to produce a photo copy of the Form-T, the Receipt accompanying the presentation of the document before the Sub Registrar, which came to be marked in evidence as Exhibit PW1/C-37, since after notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act was issued, the Plaintiff had received a reply that the original document was not traceable; it was the Petitioner’s case that the Court should permit secondary evidence to be led by the Petitioner. The secondary evidence was by way of producing a carbon copy of the original Sale Deed which, according to the Petitioner, contains the original signatures of the Defendants on the document, in proof of the execution of the Sale Deed of the suit property.

8. Section 65 of the Evidence Act, and more particularly clause (c) thereon, provides that when an original of a document has been destroyed or lost, when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot for any reason not arising from its own default produce it for a reasonable time, he may tender its copy as secondary evidence. This, of course, would be subject to compliance with the Rules as to notice to produce the document under Section 66 of the Evidence Act.

9. In the present case, the Petitioner has produced the copy of the Receipt in Form-T, which is admitted in evidence and claims that the document annexed to that Receipt was the original of the Sale Deed through which he derived title to the suit property. He has given notice under Section 66 to the Sub Registrar to produce the original of the document annexed to the Receipt of Form-T, to which the Sub Registrar has replied that the document is not found in the records of the Sub Registrar. From the contents of the aforementioned notice and reply, it is evident that the Plaintiff has complied with the Rules of notice under Section 66 and has thereafter moved an application for secondary evidence.

10. Instead of considering and applying the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 65 and 66, the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 has assigned a sole reason for rejecting the application, to be that the Defendants are factually disputing the existence of the Agreement and have denied executing it and has also denied having signed the document. This by itself can never be a reason for rejecting an application for secondary evidence under Section 65. The reasons for allowing or rejecting of the application must arise from the provisions of Section 65 and 66 itself. Obviously, the pleadings of the Defendants themselves deny the execution of the document. It is under those circumstances that the Plaintiff has sought production of secondary evidence and has already been allowed to produce Receipt in Form-T under which he claims that the Sale Deed was presented to the Sub Registrar. In compliance with the notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, the Sub Registrar claims that the document is not in its record and the document presented with the Receipt in Form-T cannot be found. Once the notice under Section 66 has been complied with, the Trial Court ought to have restricted itself to examine the matter in the light of the provisions of clause (c) of Section 65 and to test whether the same has been complied with. Obviously, in the present case, there is full compliance of Section 66 and provisions of Clause (c) of Section 65. This does not mean mere production of the document to be presented under Exhibit D-43 would prove the contents of the document, and the document being executed, the Plaintiff would have to lead evidence on that document can be cross examined.

11. It is also brought to my notice that subsequent to the passing of the order of 10.12.2025, the Plaintiff has completed his evidence, so also the Defendants have completed their evidence and the Sub Registrar of Ponda is presently in the witness box. In these circumstances, of course, when the application for secondary evidence under Exhibit D-43 is allowed, the Defendants must be given an opportunity to rebut the secondary evidence produced by the Plaintiff or any other evidence led by the Plaintiff to prove the document produced in the secondary evidence.

12. Under all these circumstances, and in the facts stated above, the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 is quashed and set aside. The application at Exhibit D-43 filed by the Plaintiff seeking to produce a carbon copy of the purported Sale Deed came to be executed by the Defendants, as secondary evidence is allowed. The Trial Court may complete the evidence of the Sub Registrar of Ponda, and shall thereafter allow the Plaintiff to present the document, i.e. carbon copy of the Sale Deed dated 18.06.1985 in evidence and lead his evidence in proof of that document. After his cross examination is complete, there shall be no further evidence led by the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be called upon to lead evidence restricted to the rebuttal of that document. This is, however, subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 216/2026.

13. The Trial Court is at liberty, if deemed appropriate, to recall the Sub Registrar for any further evidence that might be required to be given by him in view of the secondary evidence produced by the Plaintiff. It is made clear that the Plaintiff shall not delay the matter any further and the Plaintiff shall present himself on the next date of hearing or such date the Trial Court may fix for evidence and complete its evidence in the shortest possible time.

14. Consequently, the revived Writ Petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated 16.02.2024 stands quashed and set aside with the directions contained in preceding paragraphs. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.