C.R. No.4963 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4963 of 2008 Date of decision:01.12.2009 Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana through its Registrar …Petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board and others …Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. M. L. Sareen, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is revision petition by plaintiff Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana assailing order dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure P- 1) passed by Tribunal (under the Wakf Act), Ludhiana thereby dismissing the petitioner's application for secondary evidence. The pliantiff moved application for leading secondary evidence of the inquiry report along with demarcation report submitted by Mr. R. L. Gupta, the then Financial Commissioner, Development, Punjab alleging that the original report had been summoned from all the concerned quarters, but the same has not yet been received and a copy of the report is in possession of the office of Registrar of the plaintiff-University. In addition thereto, the plaintiff also moved an application for directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 C.R. No.4963 of 2008 -2- (Punjab Wakf Board) to produce 26 original documents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 alleged that the alleged documents are not in their custody. Accordingly, prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff to permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence of the said documents as well. The aforesaid application and request of the plaintiff for secondary evidence have been declined by learned Trial Court by impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that permission to lead secondary evidence of the inquiry report along with demarcation report would suffice and no separate permission is required for secondary evidence of the other 26 documents which had been summoned from respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has now obtained a copy of the inquiry report alongwith demarcation report under Right to Information Act from the Government. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, accordingly contended that if the petitioner has been able to obtain a copy of inquiry report along with demarcation report from the Government, it would depict that original reports are now available and, therefore, permission for secondary evidence thereof cannot be granted. There is considerable force in the contention raised on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner hesitated to admit that the original inquiry report along with demarcation report is now C.R. No.4963 of 2008 -3- available with the Government, although stated that copy thereof has been obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. It is not understandable as to how copy of inquiry report along with demarcation report could be supplied to the petitioner if original thereof had not been available with the Government. In addition thereto, the petitioner could seek information under the Right to Information Act as to whether the original inquiry report along with demarcation report is now available with the Government or not. However, no such information has been sought. In view of the aforesaid, it is manifest that no ground for permitting the petitioner to lead secondary evidence of the inquiry report along with demarcation report is made out. The instant revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to prove the inquiry report along with demarcation report by summoning the original from the concerned quarter in accordance with law. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 01.12.2009 A.Kaundal