CR No. 3123 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3123 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.5.2009 Dilbag Singh .. Petitioner v. Varun Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.5.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby in an application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, he has been permitted to prove the pronote by leading secondary evidence. The proceedings arise in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- plaintiff had taken contradictory stand as to the existence and loss of the alleged pronote. On the one hand, the respondent-plaintiff availed of opportunities on 20.4.2007, 5.6.2007 and 16.7.2007 to produce the original thereof. On the other hand, the stand was taken that it was lost during the shifting of shop on 15.3.2006. It was submitted that considering the contradictory stand of the respondent- plaintiff and the loss of the document having not been satisfactorily proved, the respondent-plaintiff should not have been granted opportunity to prove the same by leading secondary evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. All what the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted is to prove the pronote, allegedly executed by the petitioner, by leading secondary evidence as he has the photo copy thereof, original of which was lost. The learned court below had recorded satisfaction that the loss of original pronote is prima facie proved and the existence thereof was also not in doubt. Photo copy of the same was produced before this Court as well. A perusal thereof shows that the amount of loan was paid to the petitioner by way of bank cheque which, prima CR No. 3123 of 2009 [2] facie, rules out the possibility of its fabrication at a later date, as the transaction is not in cash. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the learned court below had not gone wrong in granting opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff to prove the pronote by leading secondary evidence. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.5.2009 mk