IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1253/2009 Date of Decision:6.3.2009. Harinder Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Charanjit Kaur and others ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Liaqat Ali,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)Ludhiana whereby the application for leading secondary evidence, filed by defendant-respondent no.4, has been allowed. Briefly stated, plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.4.2004 executed by defendant no.1 Smt.Charanjit Kaur in favour of plaintiff-petitioner. He also sought a declaration to the effect that another subsequent sale deed dated 31.10.2005 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of applicant-defendant no.4 was illegal, null,void, non est, and non- effective. Plaintiff also sought decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land to any one in any manner. In the said suit, defendant no.4 filed an application for leading CR NO.1253/2009 2 secondary evidence. It was case of the defendant no.4 that he and plaintiff entered into an agreement and compromise dated 10.11.2005, in terms of which defendant no.4 executed a sale deed dated 21.11.2005 in respect of land 0B-10B-16.2/38 in favour of the plaintiff and as per the compromise the plaintiff had foregone his right in terms of the agreement to sell dated 23.4.2004. It was further the case of the applicant-defendant no.4 that during the cross examination of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) though he admitted the factum of execution of sale deed but denied the possession of the same as well as entering into compromise dated 10.1.2005. In these circumstances, the defendant sought permission to lead secondary evidence to prove aforesaid two documents, which according to him were very much essential for proper and effective adjudication of the matter . Plaintiff filed reply denying the averments contained in the application. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides allowed the application. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and perused the impugned order. The learned trial Court, while allowing the application for leading secondary evidence, moved by defendant no.4, has noticed that even in his written statement, respondent no.4 had taken a specific preliminary objection that the plaintiff by virtue of compromise dated 10.11.2005 had foregone all the rights on the basis of agreement to sell dated 23.4.2004 and since in his cross examination plaintiff denied the existence of any compromise dated CR NO.1253/2009 3 10.11.2005, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the plaintiff if defendant no.4-applicant was allowed to lead secondary evidence to prove the said documents. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court, especially when the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the defendant no.4 is permitted to lead secondary evidence in support of his pleas. No merit. Dismissed. 6.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge4