C.R. No. 4950 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 4950 of 2009
Date of Decision: September 1, 2009
Satish Kumar
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Ramesh Chand
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Vide impugned order, an application under Section 65 of the
Indian Evidence Act filed by the plaintiff- respondent has been allowed to
enable the plaintiff- respondent to prove the agreement of sale dated July
15, 2004.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that a false story regarding
the existence and loss of the agreement of sale has been concocted by the
plaintiff- respondent and that the trial Court has acted illegally in permitting
C.R. No. 4950 of 2008 [2]
the plaintiff- respondent to lead secondary evidence. The present revision
petition seems to have been filed with misconception. Vide impugned
order, a presumption has been attached regarding the existence, execution,
loss or contents of the agreement of sale. It is made clear that the impugned
order will not, in any manner, tentamount to arrive at a presumption that
existence, loss, execution, contents and admissibility of the alleged
document has been admitted. Despite the impugned order, the onus will lie
upon the respondent to establish that the said agreement of sale was actually
executed or that it was lost, as alleged. He will have to establish its
execution, contents and will have to establish its admissibility.
Dismissed.
September 1, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE