C.R. No.3807 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3807 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.09.2010. Jagbir Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Joginder Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J. S. Saneta, Advocate for the respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendants have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 11.05.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pehowa thereby dismissing application moved by defendants/petitioners for secondary evidence of two documents Mark A and Mark B (Annexure P-4). The said documents are requisition order of Harvester Combine and the endorsement made by the plaintiff-respondent. The petitioners alleged that original documents are not traceable in the record and, therefore, permission for secondary evidence thereof was sought. Learned trial Court dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, instant revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. C.R. No.3807 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners examined concerned official as witness, who deposed that record containing the original documents was not traceable and, therefore, permission for secondary evidence should have been granted. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioners did not explain as to how they are in possession of photostat copies of the documents if the originals are not traceable. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Vide order dated 28.05.2010 while issuing notice of motion, it was also directed that the petitioners shall explain as to how they could obtain photostat copies of the aforesaid documents if the originals are not traceable. Pursuant thereto, affidavit of petitioner No.2 filed today in Court is taken on record. It has been explained in the said affidavit that copies of the said documents were presented to them for compliance as petitioner No.1 was Block Development and Panchayat Officer and petitioner No.2 was Tehsildar and, therefore, photostat copies of these documents came in their possession. It is thus satisfactorily explained as to how the photostat copies came in possession of the petitioners. It may be added that the order of requisition was sent to Block Development and Panchayat Officer i.e petitioner No.1 and the driver with the vehicle was directed to report for duty to the said officer. Annexure P-4 also reveals that copy of the said order was forwarded by Tehsildar (petitioner No.2) to Station House Officer concerned. It is thus apparent that photostat copies of the aforesaid documents came in possession of the petitioners in normal course of discharge of their duty. However, since originals are not traceable, C.R. No.3807 of 2010 -3- the petitioners are entitled to lead secondary evidence of the documents. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to lead secondary evidence of the documents in question. 16.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE