C.R. No.5823 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.R. No.5823 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.08.2010 Subhash Chander .....Petitioner Vs. Kartar Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the respondent. **** ALOK SINGH, J. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.9.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala whereby the learned trial Court has declined the permission to the defendant to lead secondary evidence to prove document dated 28.7.2000, the alleged family settlement between Kartar Singh and Avtar Singh, father and son. Defendant- petitioner is alleging that he has purchased the property from Avtar Singh and Avtar Singh has sold the property in favour of the defendant vide family settlement dated 28.7.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that alleged original agreement dated 28.7.2000 is in possession of Kartar Singh and Avtar C.R. No.5823 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Singh, father and son. However, photocopy thereof was handed over to the petitioner at the time of execution of the sale deed. He further states that an application was moved requesting the trial Court to summon the original agreement dated 28.7.2000 from the possession and custody of Avtar Singh and Kartar Singh. However, both father and son with the collusion of each other, stated before the trial Court that they are not in possession of such agreement. He further states that in view of this, the petitioner should be permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove photostat copy of the agreement dated 28.7.2000, which was handed over to the petitioner at the time of execution of sale deed by Avtar Singh. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that neither Kartar Singh nor Avtar Singh are admitting execution of agreement dated 28.7.2000 and photocopy of which is not admissible in evidence. He fairly stated that without expressing any opinion on the genuineness of the document dated 28.7.2000, the defendant- petitioner can be permitted by this Court to lead secondary evidence to prove the genuineness and existence of the document dated 28.7.2000. He further stated that a heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioner while permitting him to lead secondary evidence to prove the document dated 28.7.2000. In view of the consent fairly rendered by learned counsel for the respondent, which in the opinion of this Court, is the right approach, present petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to prove alleged document dated 28.7.2000 by way of producing secondary evidence. He shall pay Rs.25,000/- as costs to the respondent within ten days from today. Both the parties shall appear before the trial Court on C.R. No.5823 of 2008 (O&M) -3- 20.8.2010. Learned trial Court shall fix a date permitting the defendant- petitioner to produce entire secondary evidence to prove the alleged document. August 09, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) renu JUDGE