Civil Revision No. 3842 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3842 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.7.2010 Mukhtiar Singh .....Petitioner Versus Gursharan Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.P. Soi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 29.4.2010, whereby the plaintiffs have been permitted to prove sale deed dated 9.12.1996 by way of secondary evidence. Vide the aforesaid sale deed, the defendant has sold the property in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that such sale deed has been lost somewhere and thus permission was sought to lead secondary evidence to prove such document. Civil Revision No. 3842 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Though the learned trial Court should have decided the application for permission to lead secondary evidence on the basis of the averments made in the application and the reply to such application, but the learned trial Court proceeded to record the statements of the witnesses to prove the loss of the document. Plaintiff-Gursharan Singh as AW1 and Jagtar Singh as AW2 have been examined, who unequivocally deposed about the loss of the sale deed about one week before the first date of evidence when they were coming on motorcycle to meet their Advocate. The sale deed is a document, which can be proved by secondary evidence as the second copy of such sale deed is available in the office of the Sub Registrar. The plaintiffs are not to gain by not producing the sale deed as they are deriving title on the basis of such sale deed. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22-07-2010 ds