Since you provided only the section title and the court, I will create a hypothetical case summary based on a potential scenario involving Section 63(5)(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This is for illustrative purposes only.

Short Summary

This case concerns the admissibility of secondary evidence, specifically a copy of a document, under Section 63(5)(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court held that the copy was inadmissible as secondary evidence because the original document's non-production was not adequately explained, and the copy's accuracy was not sufficiently established.

Facts

Mr. Sharma filed a suit against Ms. Verma claiming ownership of a property based on a registered sale deed. Mr. Sharma could not produce the original sale deed in court, claiming it was lost. Instead, he presented a photocopy of the registered sale deed obtained from the Registrar's office. Ms. Verma objected to the admissibility of the photocopy, arguing that the original's loss was not sufficiently proven and the copy's authenticity was questionable.

Issues

1. Whether the photocopy of the registered sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence under Section 63(5)(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Whether the non-production of the original sale deed was sufficiently explained.
3. Whether the accuracy of the photocopy was sufficiently established.

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Sharma)

Mr. Sharma argued that the photocopy obtained from the Registrar's office is a certified copy and therefore admissible as secondary evidence under Section 63(5)(a) of the Indian Evidence Act. He claimed he had made diligent efforts to locate the original sale deed but was unsuccessful, thus justifying the use of secondary evidence.

Respondent's Arguments (Ms. Verma)

Ms. Verma contended that Mr. Sharma failed to adequately prove the loss of the original sale deed. She argued that a mere assertion of loss is insufficient and that Mr. Sharma must demonstrate the steps taken to locate the document. Furthermore, she questioned the authenticity of the photocopy, suggesting it might not be an exact replica of the original.

Court's Reasoning

The court observed that Section 63(5)(a) allows for the admission of certified copies as secondary evidence. However, the court emphasized that the conditions for admitting secondary evidence must be strictly met. The court found that Mr. Sharma's explanation for the non-production of the original sale deed was vague and lacked specific details regarding the search efforts. The court also noted that while the photocopy was obtained from the Registrar's office, its accuracy as a true representation of the original was not conclusively established. The court relied on precedents emphasizing the need for a robust foundation before admitting secondary evidence.

Conclusion

The court ruled that the photocopy of the registered sale deed was inadmissible as secondary evidence. The court dismissed Mr. Sharma's suit, finding that he failed to prove his ownership claim due to the lack of admissible evidence. No relief was granted to the petitioner.