Attested Copies of Lost Original Documents Must Be Accepted as Secondary Evidence in Artha Rin Suits: High Court

Attested copies of original documents lost while in the custody of the court are admissible as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872; a borrower's admission of liability also dispenses with the necessity of further proof.

In a judgment delivered on 13 November 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justice Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder and Justice Mahmud Hasan made these observations in Rupali Bank Limited v. M/S Pubali Tanneries and others, First Appeal No. 118 of 2015.

Background of the Case

The appeal arose out of Artha Rin Suit No. 177 of 2006, instituted by Rupali Bank Limited against M/S Pubali Tanneries, its proprietor, mortgagors and guarantors for recovery of Tk. 36,09,13,901 through the sale of mortgaged properties.

At the time of filing the suit, the bank submitted the original documents through a list of documents (Firishthi), including loan sanction letters, acknowledgment letters, loan documents and statements of accounts. These documents were duly recorded in the case record.

During the pendency of the suit, the borrower sought relief as a sick industrial enterprise under a BRPD circular dated 13 May 2008. Subsequently, it filed Writ Petition No. 2136 of 2010 before the High Court Division, wherein the borrower expressly admitted its liability to the bank.

When the Artha Rin suit was fixed for ex parte hearing, the trial court directed the bank to produce the original documents again, although those documents had already been filed with the court. It was subsequently discovered that the original documents had been lost while in the custody of the court.

Thereafter, on 2 September 2013, the bank submitted attested photocopies of the documents as secondary evidence. However, the trial court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the original documents had not been produced. Aggrieved by the decision, the bank preferred the instant appeal before the High Court Division.

Submissions on Behalf of the Parties

Advocate Md. Imam Hasan appeared on behalf of the appellant, Rupali Bank Limited.

He submitted that the bank had duly filed the original documents through a list of documents at the time of institution of the suit. The subsequent loss of those documents occurred while they were in the custody of the court and without any negligence on the part of the bank.

He further argued that the attested copies submitted by the bank were admissible as secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The learned Advocate also submitted that the borrower's admission of liability in the writ petition before the High Court Division constituted an admission within the meaning of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which dispensed with the necessity of further proof.

No one appeared on behalf of the respondents in the appeal.

Observations of the High Court

Upon examining the materials on record, the High Court Division found that the original documents had indeed been filed by the bank at the time of institution of the suit and were subsequently lost while in the custody of the court, without any negligence on the part of the appellant.

The Court held that, in such circumstances, the attested copies submitted by the appellant were clearly admissible as secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court further observed that the defendant had admitted its liability to the bank in a writ petition filed before the High Court Division. Such admission falls within the meaning of Section 58 of the Evidence Act and dispenses with the necessity of further proof.

The Bench also noted that, under Section 19(6) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, the trial court is empowered to dispose of a suit on the basis of affidavits and documentary evidence.

Therefore, the dismissal of the suit merely on the ground of non-production of original documents, despite the presence of admissible secondary evidence on record, was not sustainable in law.

In reaching its decision, the Court relied upon the decisions in Janata Bank Limited v. Diniat Begum and others, 2 ALR 160, and Osman Gazi Chowdhury v. Artha Rin Adalat and another, 21 BLC 322. These decisions recognised the admissibility of secondary evidence where original documents are lost and the court is required to consider such evidence in the interest of justice.

Decision and Directions

The High Court Division allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.

The case was remanded to the trial court with a direction to accept the attested copies of the documents as secondary evidence and dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law.

The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.

Legal Significance

The judgment clarifies that a litigant should not suffer prejudice merely because original documents are lost while in the custody of the court, particularly where the loss occurs without any fault or negligence on the part of that litigant.

It reaffirms that attested copies of original documents may be admitted as secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, where the statutory requirements are fulfilled.

The judgment also highlights the evidentiary significance of an admission of liability under Section 58 of the Evidence Act. Where a borrower has admitted its liability in judicial proceedings, such admission may dispense with the necessity of further proof of the admitted fact.

For Artha Rin proceedings, the decision underscores the importance of properly evaluating admissible documentary and secondary evidence rather than dismissing a recovery suit solely because original documents are no longer available.

Case Details

• Case: Rupali Bank Limited v. M/S Pubali Tanneries and others
• Case Number: First Appeal No. 118 of 2015
• Original Suit: Artha Rin Suit No. 177 of 2006
• Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
• Bench: Justice Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder and Justice Mahmud Hasan
• Date of Hearing: 2 November 2025
• Date of Judgment: 13 November 2025
• Counsel for the Appellant: Advocate Md. Imam Hasan
• Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared
• Relevant Provisions: Sections 58, 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872; Section 19(6) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
• Source: Full judgment of the High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh (9 pages).