IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6486 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.3.2009 Jag Ram ....Petitioner Versus Pritam Singh (died) through his LRs ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated November 26, 2007, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for proving the agreement of mortgage dated 22.9.1999 by way of secondary evidence, has been allowed by the learned Court below.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the very beginning his stand in the written statement was that agreement of mortgage in original is in possession of the petitioner and after the mortgage agreement was signed, the petitioner had returned the amount of Rs. 1 lac taken by him from the respondent whereas the stand of the respondent/plaintiff is that though the agreement was signed but the amount was not returned back by the petitioner to the respondent. As the petitioner was claiming to be in possession of the agreement of mortgage in original, for proving the same the learned Court below had allowed the respondent/plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. While issuing notice of motion on December 14, 2007 the petitioner was permitted to place the agreement in original before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same has been produced before the trial Court in original The existence of the agreement of mortgage is not even disputed by the respondent and that the same was initially signed by the parties. The only dispute is as to whether the amount was returned back by the petitioner to the respondent or not. The agreement in original has already been placed on record before the trial Court by the petitioner. Resultantly, the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff in the application filed for leading secondary evidence to prove the agreement of mortgage does not survive. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is set aside. The revision petition is disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) 16.3.2009 JUDGE Reema