JUDGMENT
Iqbal Singh, J.
1. Refusal of the trial Court to allow the defendant-petitioners to lead secondary evidence has led to the filing of the present petition.
2. In a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from raising any type of construction over the suit property, the defendants laid a claim that they are owners of the suit property as they had purchased it from its real owner vide sale deed dated 26.4.1979. The defendants made an application before the trial Court seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the said sale deed dated 26.3.1979 stating that the original sale deed had been lost and was not traceable despite best efforts; that for tracing the original sale deed the defendants had sought two adjournments but the document was not traceable.
3. The application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent stating that the defendant-petitioners never sought any adjournment for tracing the sale deed.
4. I have heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.B. Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Before a petitioner can succeed in leading secondary evidence in respect of any document, he is required to prove the loss of the original or his inability to produce the original for the reasons not arising from his own default or neglect. In this case, the defendant-petitioners have not been able to prove the loss of the original sale deed or that their inability to produce the same not arising out of their own default. There is nothing on the record to show as to when the original sale deed was lost and what steps were taken to trace out the same and the inability of the petitioner-defendants to trace out the same within reasonable time. The original sale deed is the best evidence of its contents. Non production of the sale deed ordinarily raises a suspicion in the mind of the Court and a great care is required to decide whether there has been really a bona fide loss. The party seeking permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence is also required to show that all the sources and means at its disposal were exhausted in the search of the document, which were available to him. The appellate Court ordinarily would not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the trial Court in such like matters unless and until the order is without jurisdiction and has been passed without taking into consideration all the pre-requisites required by the Evidence Act. In this case, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the loss of document has not been proved. Therefore, it was justified in not allowing the application filed by the defendant-petitioners for leading secondary evidence in respect of the sale deed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Sinnu v. Smt. Pali and Ors., (1992-1)101 P.L.R. 378. The facts of that case are not applicable here. In that case, the original Will dated 12.10.1983 was produced in mutation proceedings before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade as Exhibit P-1. The mutation having been contested was transferred to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, who held that the Will was not genuine and, consequently, the mutation was not sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter instituted a regular civil suit. In the course of evidence, the plaintiff summoned record relating to mutation proceedings in which the original Will had been produced. The Office Quanungo, who appeared in the Court, stated that the original record was not traceable and the above report was endorsed by the Tehsildar. Thereafter, an application was made by the plaintiff for permission to lead secondary evidence, which was in the form of a photostat copy alleged to be of the original Will. The application was resisted and the trial Court dismissed the same with the finding that the applicant had failed to establish that the original had been either destroyed or lost. Keeping in view the above facts, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the plaintiff was unable to produce the original Will in a reasonable time and the reason for his inability did not arise out of his own default of neglect. The learned Single Judge allowed the revision petition granting permission to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead secondary evidence. It was held that it would be open to the defendant-respondents to bring on record all possible facts and circumstances, which would eventually help the Court to determine the evidentiary value to be. given to the photostat copy proposed to be produced in the secondary evidence. As staged above, in the instant case, there is no proof of the loss of the original sale deed. Therefore, the case of Sinni (supra) does not help the petitioners.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.