Simar Pal Singh vs Hakam Singh on 2 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simar Pal Singh vs Hakam Singh on 2 March, 2009
Civil Revision No.785 of 2008 (O&M)                            -1-

                        AT CHANDIGARH

                    Civil Revision No.785 of 2008 (O&M)
                    Date of decision: 02.03.2009

Simar Pal Singh                                   .............Petitioner


Hakam Singh                                       ............Respondent

Present: Mr. H.R. Kapil, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Toor, Advocate
for the respondent.


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?



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


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.

March 02, 2009

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *