A sues B, on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the trail A calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. Can he do so? Refer to the provisions of law of evidence.

Facts of the Case

• A files a suit against B based on an agreement.
• During the proceedings, A issues a notice to B to produce the original agreement (primary evidence) as required under the Evidence Act.
• At the trial, A again calls upon B to produce the original agreement.
• B refuses to produce the document despite having possession of it.
• Due to B’s refusal, A introduces secondary evidence relating to the contents of the agreement.
• After A introduces secondary evidence, B now tries to produce the original agreement, either:
  • to contradict A’s secondary evidence, or
  • to show that the agreement is unstamped or insufficiently stamped.

The legal question is whether B can produce the document after refusing to produce it earlier.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether A is entitled to give secondary evidence after B refuses to produce the original agreement?
2. Whether B, after refusing to comply with a notice to produce, can then produce the original document?
3. Whether B can rely on the original document to:
   • contradict A’s secondary evidence, or
   • show that the agreement is not stamped or insufficiently stamped?
4. Which provisions of the Indian Evidence Act apply to such a situation?

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgments

A. Section 66 – Notice to Produce

When a party wishes to give secondary evidence of a document in possession of the opposite party, a notice to produce must be given.

• A gave valid notice to B to produce the agreement.
• B’s refusal allows A to introduce secondary evidence.

B. Section 65(a) – Secondary Evidence Permitted

Secondary evidence may be given when:

• The original is in possession of the opposite party,
• Proper notice to produce has been given, and
• The party refuses or fails to produce the document.

Thus, A is legally justified in producing secondary evidence.

C. Effect of B’s Refusal – Adverse Inference (Section 114 Illustration (g))

If a party refuses to produce a document after notice, the court may presume:

• That the document, if produced, would be unfavourable to that party.

Thus, B cannot later take advantage of the very document he unlawfully withheld.

D. Whether B Can Subsequently Produce the Document?

Although the Evidence Act does not explicitly bar B from subsequently producing the document, courts have held:

• A party who refuses to produce a document after notice cannot later use it to contradict the opposing party’s secondary evidence.
• The law prevents a party from benefiting from his own wrongful conduct.

This principle is rooted in:

• Section 114(g)
• General principles of equity and fair procedure.

E. Stamping Objection

Under the Indian Stamp Act:

• An unstamped document cannot be admitted in evidence.
• But this objection must be raised when the document is tendered, not after refusing to produce it.

If B refused to produce the document despite notice, he cannot later object on the ground of insufficient stamping.

Courts have held that a party cannot:

• suppress a document,
• force the opponent to use secondary evidence,
• then use the original to defeat that secondary evidence.

F. Case Law

1. Kundan Lal v. Custodian, Evacuee Property (AIR 1961 SC 1316)

The Supreme Court held that when a party refuses to produce a document, the opponent may give secondary evidence.

2. Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji (AIR 1943 PC 83)

A party who refuses to produce a document after notice cannot afterwards seek to rely on that document.

3. Hiralal v. Badkulal (AIR 1953 SC 225)

The Court emphasized that procedural fairness prevents a party from taking advantage of his own refusal.

Possible Judgment

B Cannot Be Allowed to Produce the Document After Refusing to Produce It Earlier.

Reasons:

1. A validly gave notice under Section 66, and B refused.
2. Under Section 65(a), A is entitled to give secondary evidence.
3. By refusing to produce the document, B allowed the secondary evidence to be admissible.
4. Under Section 114(g), an adverse inference can be drawn against B.
5. B cannot now produce the document to:
   • contradict A’s secondary evidence, or
   • claim the agreement is unstamped.

Allowing B to do so would:

• reward his wrongful withholding of evidence,
• cause prejudice to A,
• and violate principles of fair trial.

About lawgnan

If you are dealing with disputes involving document production, secondary evidence, notice to produce, or unfair suppression of original records, you must act wisely and protect your legal rights. The Indian Evidence Act provides powerful remedies when the opposite party refuses to produce crucial documents, and the courts allow you to rely on secondary evidence. To understand how to use these provisions effectively, avoid legal pitfalls, and strengthen your case, consult experienced legal experts. For professional drafting, case strategy, and evidence guidance, visit Lawgana.in today and get reliable legal support for your case.