Civil Revision No. 6364 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6364 of 2009 Date of decision : 11.1.2010 Karamjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Shamsher Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Taranjit Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-defendant had applied for the leave of the Court to bring on record secondary evidence to prove the partition agreement dated 14.5.2002. Learned Trial Court negatived the plea by observing that the document appeared to be inadequately stamped and further because the original thereof was compulsively registrable. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that document being in possession of the party opposite which refrained from producing it, the petitioner-defendant was left with no option but to prove the contents thereof by means of secondary evidence i.e. photocopy thereof. The premise noticed by the learned Trial Court to decline Civil Revision No. 6364 of 2009 -2- **** the reception of secondary evidence deserves affirmation. If the original of a document was inadequately stamped and it required registration as well, no secondary evidence thereof can be acceptable if the original thereof had not been got registered. It follows therefrom if the original could not have been validly accepted at law, the photocopy thereof obviously cannot be acceptable at law as secondary evidence. It is only the inadequacy of stamps which could be taken care of but not the non registration of that document. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 11,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE