Civil Revision No.785 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.785 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.03.2009
Simar Pal Singh .............Petitioner
Vs.
Hakam Singh ............Respondent
Present: Mr. H.R. Kapil, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Toor, Advocate
for the respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)
1. The revision is against an order rejecting the plea of the
petitioner to receive the secondary evidence of a document on the
ground that the original is lost. The petition is dismissed on a
reasoning by the learned Judge that the loss of the receipt was not
proved.
2. At the time when a petition is filed for producing secondary
evidence nothing more needs to be proved than stating one of the
grounds as required under Section 65 to justify the reception of
secondary evidence. Whether the grounds do really exist or not could
only be tested in the cross-examination if a basis is laid in the chief
examination. The trial Court shall not receive secondary evidence if
evidence is not even tendered for justification of production of the
Civil Revision No.785 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
secondary evidence. A matter which is essentially one of evidence
could not be expected to be proved even before consideration of the
document by the Court. Even mere marking of the document will not
supplant the requirement of proof in a manner known to law.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in its decision
Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1 while
setting out the procedure for receiving documents, when an objection
is taken during the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has castigated
the practice of holding up trial on objections taken at the time of
tendering documents in evidence. Inviting Courts to pass orders on
objections has been termed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as “archaic
practice”. That decision was rendered while dealing with reception of
a document under Criminal procedure Code, but the procedure laid
down in the said judgment has been adopted in several other cases
even for documents tendered under the Civil Procedure Code.
4. The order of the Court below is set aside and the petitioner
shall be permitted to adduce such evidence as he thinks necessary to
lay a foundation for reception of secondary evidence and the fact of
loss or otherwise would be tested in the cross-examination and an
inference or reliance on such a document could be taken up for
consideration at the time of final disposal of the suit.
5. The civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
March 02, 2009
Pankaj*
