IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4478 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.7.2010 Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus Rishi Sudhakar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.6.2010 by which the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence has been declined. The petitioner wanted certain document to be produced in order to substantiate his case. He is facing eviction proceedings in a petition preferred by the landlord. In his application he pleaded that he had summoned RW1 Mohit Bhandari, Clerk-cum-Cashier, bank of Baroda, Ludhiana along with mortgage deed executed vide agreement of Hypothecation of Books Debts dated 29.1.1999 by M/s Infotech Management Private Limited, Ludhiana to secure cash credit limit of Rs.20 Lakh and bank guarantee of Rs.10 Lakh which was signed by respondent No.1. The said witness testified that the record pertains to the period 1999-2000 and the same has been destroyed according to the bank's existing guidelines. The petitioner did not specify the C.R.No.4478 of 2010 (O&M) -2- documents but stated that according to Section 125 of the Companies Act, whenever a charge is created by a company, a copy thereof verified in the prescribed manner has to be filed with the Registrar of Companies for registration in the manner required under the Act and under Section 143 of the Act the company has to maintain at its registered office a register of charges and enter therein all charges specifically affecting the property of the company. He prayed that permission be granted to him to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. His prayer was declined by the Court on the ground that the document which the petitioner wanted to rely on was not on record and that prima facie existence of the document which he wanted to prove by way of secondary evidence was not available on record. Lastly, the court observed that it had no relevance to the proceedings and further that the petitioner who is tenant was delaying the proceedings. The application having been dismissed has given rise to the present petition wherein the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petition is misconceived. To a pointed query by this Court as to what was the intent and relevance of the document to the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of the said document he wants to prove that the respondent No.1 is the director of the company and therefore he does not require the premises for his own bona fide need. I am afraid the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is too far fetched and irrelevant C.R.No.4478 of 2010 (O&M) -3- to the facts of the case when the respondent No.1 pleaded that he requires the premises for his own use. The premises is a shop where the respondent intends to start his business of computer spare parts. The factum of bona fide requirement is to be proved by evidence which is germane to such aspect. That apart, the court has noticed that the petitioner has failed to show that the document was not within his knowledge and so much so even the copy of the document was not placed on record. There is thus no merit in the petition and the court has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner. Dismissed. 21.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE