Civil Revision No.3471 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3471 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:29.06.2010 Amarjit Singh ....petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.J.S.Verka,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 20.04.2010 whereby his application for allowing him to prove the sale deed dated 04.05.1984 executed by Hem Raj in his favour, which was subsequently registered on 11.05.1984, by way of secondary evidence on the ground that the original has been lost, was dismissed. By producing the aforesaid evidence, the petitioner wants to prove the factum that he has purchased the land described in the aforesaid sale deed along with the tube well connection in dispute. However, the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial court vide impugned order observing that the aforesaid sale deed has not been relied upon by the petitioner in his pleadings or in the list of documents filed at the time of filing of the suit. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Civil Revision No.3471 of 2010 2 petitioner has vehemently argued that in para No.2 of the plaint, petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid sale deed to prove his contention and it is also clear from the headnote of the plaint as well as from the document Annexure P-6 i.e.the revenue record and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order as well as averments made in this petition and other documents attached with this petition. Para No.2 of the plaint, which is relevant for the purpose of present controversy has been reproduced by the petitioner in para No.6 of this petition. However, a perusal of the same would show that to prove his contention, the petitioner has relied upon a registered sale deed dated 19.11.2000 to say that he has purchased the share of the tube well along with the land and there is no mention of the sale deed dated 04.05.1984/11.05.1984 sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 29.06.2010 neenu