Civil Revision No. 2219 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2219 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 31.03.2011 Shree Digamber Jain Sabha (Regd.) ....Petitioner Vs. Virender Gupta and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.10. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This petition assails the order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, declining the application filed by the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') to lead secondary evidence to prove demarcation report (nishan dehi) and the copy of the application therefor. None has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondents and other proforma respondents, except respondent No.10-Municipal Committee, Sadar, Ambala Cantt. The trial Court appears to have taken a wrong view of the matter, as the petitioner had summoned official Kulbir Singh from the office of Sub Registrar, who disclosed that the demarcation was conducted in the case, but the same has been lost. Civil Revision No. 2219 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a copy of the demarcation report alongwith the application for demarcation, as moved by the petitioner, is lying with the Municipal Committee and he could summon these two documents and prove the same by way of secondary evidence. The demarcation report being opinion evidence and the application for conducting demarcation are not public documents. But, the trial Court has not taken correct view of the matter that demarcation report is a public document. This was the document to be proved by the witness, who had conducted the demarcation. No iota of doubt is left in my mind to observe that existence and loss of the document stand proved from the testimony of Kulbir Singh (DW-2). Therefore, in view of the statement made by Kulbir Singh that the original record has been lost, there should have been no hitch to allow the petitioner to prove the said document by way of secondary evidence. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to prove the aforesaid two documents by way of secondary evidence. (A.N.JINDAL) 31st of March, 2011 JUDGE ajp