Civil Revision No.2645 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2645 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 25.01.2011 Surjit Kaur ...... Petitioner VERSUS Baljit Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Aggrieved against the order dated 02.02.2010, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, allowing the application of respondent No.1-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') for leading secondary evidence, the petitioner-defendant No.1 (herein referred as 'defendant No.1') has preferred this petition. When the suit of the plaintiff was pending at the stage of his evidence, he moved an application for proving Xerox copy of the compromise dated 04.09.2006, purported to have been executed between the parties during the pendency of the suit by way of secondary evidence which was allowed. Compromise dated 04.09.2006 is stated to be between the parties and entered into during the pendency of the suit. The main challenge to the order is on the ground that Xerox copy of the compromise is not admissible in evidence and the same is also not the part of the pleadings, therefore, it should not have been allowed. Civil Revision No.2645 of 2010 2 Having heard the contentions of the rival parties, it may be observed that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 23.08.2006 whereas the compromise allegedly came into existence on 04.09.2006, therefore, the said compromise could not be pleaded in the suit. However, the plaintiff has brought on record the Xerox copy of the said compromise for which he wants to lead the secondary evidence in order to prove that some compromise has taken place between the parties. The trial Court has rightly allowed the application while holding that on proof of the existence of the document, the plaintiff could be allowed to lead secondary evidence subject to all just exceptions i.e. its reliability, admissibility and proof of existence of the document. The Court has recorded that proof of compromise was essential for just decision of the case and in order to reach the right conclusion. No such illegality has been pointed out in the order which may result into miscarriage of justice. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 25.01.2011 mamta-II