C.R. No. 6026 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6026 of 2010 Date of decision:- 09.11.2011 Sudesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Sunita Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Aashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate for respondent No. 3 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. This revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is against order dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leading secondary evidence, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner (for short 'petitioner') filed suit for possession of land measuring 29' x 22' out of plot NO. 958 situated at J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from alienating or raising any type C.R. No. 6026 of 2010 -2- of construction over the suit land. This suit was instituted on 08.05.2007. In this application, the petitioner sought to produce on record the original documents i.e Annexure A-1 to A-15 as mentioned in the application. Photocopies of the said documents have been placed on record along with the plaint. On 15.11.2008, the petitioner had gone to his house No. 958, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar, which was under construction and taken the said original document for handing over the same to his counsel, who is also residing in the same locality and to prepare evidence. However, the bag containing original documents fell on the way. Thereafter D.D.R No. 12 dated 18.11.2008 was registered by the petitioner to the Police Station, Divn No. 5 and also made a public notice in Daily Newspaper Ajit but the said documents could not be traced out. When he could not trace the lost documents, he made the application to allow the petitioner to lead secondary evidence. However, the application has been rejected by the Court on the ground that there was no intimation given to the Court when the original documents were lost by the petitioner. Under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff should have produce the said documents in original at the time of presentation of the plaint. On this ground, the application of the petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in a case of 'Ashok Kumar Sachdeva vs. Harish Malik, 2008(3) Civil Court Cases 397 (P&H)'. In this case, the xerox copy of compromise deed has been placed on record of the Court as the C.R. No. 6026 of 2010 -3- original compromise has been lost. While considering Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court allowed the application for leading secondary evidence on the ground that to prove a document by way of primary or secondary evidence is a rule of evidence. Party may ultimately succeed in proving the document or not is a question of law and depend upon evidence. For the above reasons and applying the ratio of the above said judgment, civil revision is allowed. Order dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar is set aside. The application of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence of the documents which were lost on 15.11. 2008 is allowed. The trial Court can form its opinion regarding existence of document and circumstances enumerated in Section 65 for secondary evidence. Thereafter, the Court has to say whether the document is proved or not. 09.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE