C.R.No. 4567 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No. 4567 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.11.2008 Dharam Singh ...Petitioner Versus Prem Lal and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr. K.S.Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2008. During the course of proceedings in a suit which was preferred by respondent No.1 for specific performance and is pending since 1995, the petitioner moved an application praying for appropriate directions to respondent No.1 to place the original agreement to sell on file as only a photo stat copy had been placed thereon. The respondent No.1 took up the plea that the original agreement to sell had been placed on file on the request of the petitioner but the case file had got destroyed in the fire which took place in the record-room of the court and, therefore, he is not in possession of the original agreement to sell. C.R.No. 4567 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order contended that the entire file has been reconstructed except for the original agreement to sell which has not been placed on record by respondent No.1. It is contended that the court could not have accepted the statement of respondent No.1 without actually recording a finding to that effect that the document has been burnt in the fire of the record-room. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that since the agreement was placed on record on the asking of the petitioner and the same having been destroyed in the fire, he is not in possession of the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the agreement to sell goes to the root of the entire controversy. In this view of the matter, the court could not have accepted the statement of respondent No.1 straightway without scrutinising the plea on the basis of some material. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the court to record a finding that the original agreement to sell had been destroyed, on the strength of the material that the respective parties may produce before it. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to decide the application afresh. Petition allowed. November 25, 2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss