Court Cannot Dismiss Ex-Parte Suit for Non-Production of Originals After Permitting Documents to be Exhibited

The Appellant Bank filed a commercial suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,45,000/- against the Respondent, who had defaulted on a personal loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-

Despite service and attempted pre-litigation mediation, the Respondent failed to appear and was proceeded ex-parte

During the trial, the Bank produced witness PW-1, who tendered an affidavit and exhibited several documents, including the loan agreement and statement of accounts

However, the Commercial Court dismissed the suit on 10th April 2026, holding that the Bank failed to prove its case because it had relied on photocopies rather than primary evidence

The Bank appealed, asserting that original documents were indeed produced at the time of exhibition

1. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground of non-production of original documents despite the documents being marked as exhibits during evidence.

2. Whether the Court should have provided the Plaintiff an opportunity to produce/clarify the status of original documents before dismissing an ex-parte suit.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). Specifically, Section 59 (corresponding to Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act), which mandates that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in specified exceptions

Section 57 defines primary evidence as the document itself produced for inspection

Section 60 (corresponding to Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act) governs secondary evidence

Section 63(4)(c) regarding the certification of electronic records/statements of account

The High Court observed that the Trial Court's reasoning was contradictory; if original documents were not produced, the documents should have been marked "for identification" rather than being assigned "exhibit" marks

The High Court held that the act of marking exhibits by a court typically implies that the originals were produced for inspection

Further, the High Court criticized the Trial Court for dismissing the suit summarily without giving the Bank an opportunity to produce the originals, especially since the defendant was ex-parte

The Court determined that the technical dismissal was "completely unwarranted" and that the procedural lapse in recording the inspection of originals should not result in a total loss of claim

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal; the matter was remanded to the District Judge (Commercial Court-03), Saket, for fresh adjudication, providing the Appellant a specific opportunity to produce the original documents once more.