Civil Revision No.1008 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Revision No.1008 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 24.08.2009 **** Shivjant Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Ranjit Singh . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. N.S. Thind, Advocate for the respondent ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by defendants against the order dated 24th January, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo dismissing his application to lead secondary evidence to prove the writing dated 2nd March 2006, which according to the petitioner-defendants, is a deed of cancellation of the agreement to sell dated 08.11.2005. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 8th November, 2005. The defendants have taken the plea in the written statement that the aforesaid agreement to sell was later on cancelled on 2nd March, 2006 vide Writing (Mark D-1) and that cancellation deed is thumb-marked by Jora Singh-father of the respondent-plaintiff, who had represented the respondent-plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 8th November, 2005 also. The petitioners also moved an application to direct the respondent- plaintiff to produce the original of writing dated 2nd March, 2006, which was allegedly in the possession of Jora Singh s/o Bachan Singh, father of the Civil Revision No.1008 of 2009 - 2 - respondent-plaintiff. In reply to that application, the respondent-plaintiff averred that the writing (Mark D-1) is a false, forged and fabricated document and is neither signed by him nor by his father Jora Singh. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners-defendants want to lead secondary evidence to prove the execution of the writing dated 2nd March, 2006. The trial Court dismissed the application after observing that the writing dated 2nd March, 2006 is claimed to be of Jora Singh to which the respondent-plaintiff is not a party and that the petitioner-defendants have served no notice calling upon Jora Singh to produce the original of the writing dated 2nd March, 2006. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the stand taken by the petitioner-defendants that the original of the writing dated 2nd March, 2006 is in the custody of Jora Singh and a photocopy thereof has been produced by them along with their written statement after taking a specific plea regarding cancellation of agreement to sell, I am of the considered view that the trial Court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner-defendants to prove the existence of the writing dated 2nd March, 2006 if made by the father of respondent-plaintiff. This, however, shall not mean that the said document or its contents stand admitted in evidence. For the reasons afore-stated, the present Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 24.01.2009 is hereby set aside and the petitioners are permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove the writing dated 2nd March, 2006 allegedly in possession of Jora Singh s/o Bachan Singh, father of the respondent- plaintiff. In case the execution of the document dated 2nd March, 2006 is proved, it shall not preclude the respondent-plaintiff to question its admissibility in evidence and/or otherwise. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 24.08.2009 shonkar Civil Revision No.1008 of 2009 - 3 -