Civil Revision No.271 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.271 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.1.2009 Vikram Dhanda .....Petitioner Versus Parveen Nayyer ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 14.4.1999. In the course of the trial, the plaintiff- respondent applied to obtain the leave of the Court to adduce secondary evidence to prove the impugned agreement dated 14.4.1999. The averments, in support of the plea aforementioned, were as under:- The plaintiff-respondent is not in possession of the original agreement dated 14.4.1999 which (agreement) had been kept in the custody of the property consultant ( Yash Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Yash Sharma and company, 3005, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh) who had facilitated the finalisation of that agreement. When Yash Sharma aforementioned was summoned, a report was received that he had left that address. On ascertainment of his fresh address, a summons was sent to him but a report was received that he was not alive. The respondent-plaintiff also Civil Revision No.271 of 2009 -2- **** made efforts to look for the whereabouts of other family members of Yash Sharma aforementioned but his efforts did not bear fruit. That agreement had otherwise been executed on a stamp paper purchased by defendant- petitioner and it had further been attested by Jatinder Singh, (resident of house No.1117, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh) and Hardayal Singh (resident of House No. 260, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh). By that time, the plaintiff- respondent had placed on record only a photocopy of that agreement. The defendant-petitioner had raised a plea at the trial that no such agreement dated 14.4.1999 was in existence and that the agreement dated 14.4.1999 was a forged and fabricated document. In order to obtain the original thereof, the defendant-petitioner also filed an application for production of the original document. In the counter to that application, it was averred by the plaintiff-respondent that document had been retained by Yash Sharma aforementioned who had made only a photocopy thereof available to him. Learned Trial Court allowed the plea for secondary evidence by observing that on account of death of Yash Sharma aforementioned, the plaintiff-respondent had been left with no remedy except to adduce secondary evidence to prove the agreement to sell dated 14.4.1999, a photocopy whereof had already been produced by him in the civil suit file. It further noticed that the mere grant of permission to adduce secondary evidence would not amount to reception of the document and the relevant evidence (stamp vendor and attesting witnesses) shall have to be evaluated at the trial only. It was in the light of the above observation that the learned Trial Court allowed the plaintiff-respondent to lead secondary evidence “but subject to formal proof of the existence of the said document.” Civil Revision No.271 of 2009 -3- **** Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that entire approach of the learned Trial Court is invalid in view of the fact that the plea for additional evidence had been allowed even without there being any evidence that the document under reference had actually been lying in the custody of Yash Sharma, property consultant. The plea raised is oblivious of the observation made by the learned Trial Court to the effect that the plea stands allowed “subject to formal proof of the existence of the said document.” The impugned order does not, at all, suffer from any infirmity. Dismissed in limine. January 19, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE