CR No.1004 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1004 of 2005 Date of Decision: 13.07.2010 Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal ..Petitioner Vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Gurgaon dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for leading secondary evidence to prove registered lease deed dated 18.5.1985. The petitioner moved an application for leading secondary evidence on the plea that by way of registered lease deed suit land was leased out to the petitioner vide Vasika No.738 dated 18.5.1985. The lease deed was lost and therefore, it was to be proved by way of secondary CR No.1004 of 2005 2 evidence. The application was contested by pleading that lease deed had not been lost, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. Learned trial court dismissed the application by observing, that the suit was instituted on 30.6.1999 and the trial commenced on 7.5.2001, one witness of he plaintiff was also examined. The learned trial court held that vide order dated 29.4.2002, plaintiff/petitioner was warned to conclude his evidence on the next date of hearing by giving him last opportunity. On the date fixed the petitioner moved this application that he wanted to prove lease deed by way of secondary evidence. As it was the last opportunity, the learned trial court took this application to be an attempt to prolong the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the document sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence was a registered lease deed, and not a document which could be prepared by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that there was no reason for the court to doubt, that the lease deed was not lost, as the suit was based on the lease deed, therefore, there was no reason with the petitioner not to produce the lease deed in original, in case it was with him. In spite of service, no body has chosen to contest the revision petition. Arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted as presumption of loss can be drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the suit was filed to claim relief under CR No.1004 of 2005 3 the lease deed. The production and proving of this document is very necessary to sustain the suit. The document i.e. the lease deed is otherwise also a registered document, the authenticity of which cannot be doubted, furthermore, it is for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove due execution by leading evidence to prove the document. For the reasons stated, the presumption of loss could be easily drawn, and in any case, the plea of loss could not be doubted. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The partitioner is permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove the registered lease deed dated 18.5.1985. 09.07.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge