Civil Rev. 3787 of 2008 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
Civil Rev. 3787 of 2008
Date of decision: 11.8.2009
Rana Partap Singh
Petitioner
vs
Kabal Singh
Respondent
Present Mr. HS Batth, Advocate
Mr. BR Mahajan, Advocate
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The defendant has preferred this revision petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 12.6.2008 by
virtue of which the trial court has permitted the plaintiff- respondent to lead
secondary evidence pertaining to a pronote and receipt, which has been
relied upon by the plaintiff in his suit for recovery.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that the present revision petition has been filed being
apprehensive that the impugned order dated 12.6.2008 would imply the
existence, admissibility and evidentiary value of the pronote, alleged to
have been executed by the defendant- petitioner. In this context, a
reference can be made to judgment of this court in Ashok Kumar
Sachdeva vs Harish Malik 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 311, wherein it has been
clarified that to grant leave to lead secondary evidence does not mean that
the document is admitted in evidence nor it is a finding of the existence of
any of the conditions indicated in Section 65 of the Evidence Act. It was
further observed in the said judgment that the failure or success to prove
Civil Rev. 3787 of 2008 2
the existence of documents or its loss cannot be pre-determined that too
without providing opportunity and that whether it is proved or not, is to be
seen after the leave is granted and the material/ evidence produced is
evaluated.
In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed
by again clarifying that the impugned order will not tantamount to
admission of existence/ execution/loss of the document. The plaintiff will
have to, in accordance with law, prove by adopting an appropriate mode of
proof, admissibility and relevance of the document sought to be established
by way of secondary evidence.
August 11 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE