IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.365/2011 Date of decision:19.1.2011. Manjit Kaur .............Petitioner v Gurmit Kaur ..............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.AK Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral). Defendant/petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2010 (P6) whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the defendant/petitioner for leading secondary evidence qua a complaint dated 26.7.2005 submitted by the plaintiff to the police authorities. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner submits that in the suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.2 lacs on the basis of a pronote dated 24.4.2004 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, the plea taken by the defendant/petitioner in their written statement is that there was a history of allegations levelled by the plaintiff to the effect that petitioner had not returned a sum taken for sending the son of the plaintiff abroad/New Zealand. Since neither the money was returned nor son of the plaintiff was sent abroad, plaintiff had filed a complaint dated 26.7.2005 before the police authorities seeking initiation of action for fraud and mis-representation against the defendant. It is thus submitted that to substantiate her plea, the leading of secondary evidence of the complaint dated 26.7.2005 is absolutely necessary. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant I find no substance in his arguments. It is not in dispute that the executant of the aforesaid alleged complaint dated 26.7.2005 i.e. plaintiff in her cross examination had denied the existence of the same. Receipt of the said complaint has also been denied by the official/MHC of the concerned police station who had appeared as a witness. It is also not in dispute that the original complaint dated 26.7.2005 has not seen the light of the day. In such facts and circumstances, in my opinion, even if the secondary evidence was permitted to be led, the same would be inadmissible in evidence and therefore, the whole exercise would be futile. In the above circumstances, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 19.1.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge