C.R.No.319 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.319 of 2009. Decided on: December 03, 2009. Gian Chand .. Petitioner VERSUS Mewa Singh .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Tajender Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Rattan, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.10.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Dhuri, allowing the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, filed by the defendant-respondent to prove the agreement dated 02.09.2003, by way of secondary evidence observing that the . . . 1 C.R.No.319 of 2009 admissibility of the document will be considered as and when the photocopy of the agreement is sought to be proved in the Court. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the document which is sought to be proved by secondary evidence is a forged and fabricated photocopy of a document which does not even exist. He has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2007(8) S.C.C. 514, Hariom Agrawal Vs. Prakash Chand Malviya, to contend that a photocopy of instrument to be admitted as secondary evidence on account of original having lost cannot be permitted if photocopy shows that the original document was insufficiently stamped. He claims that a stamp of Rs.300/- as per Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, is required on an agreement of sale of immovable property whereas the document photocopy of which is sought to be produced apparently bears the stamp of Rs.20/-. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent and gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. Counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of the Court that document in question has already been placed on record and now the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a great prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner in case the document in question is taken to be admissible in evidence as a . . . 2 C.R.No.319 of 2009 photocopy of the document which is insufficiently stamped cannot be impounded and required fee or penalty cannot be ordered to be paid. I have heard counsel for the parties, at length, and I am of the opinion that in view of the stage of the trial, the petition should be disposed of leaving it open to the trial Court to consider the ratio of the judgment in Hariom Agrawal's case (supra) and to determine the relevancy of admissibility, the valid execution as well as the mode of production of the document of the alleged date i.e., 02.09.2003, put forth by the defendant-respondent at the time of final arguments. It will be open to the counsel for the plaintiff to rely upon various legal provisions as well as case law pertaining to the admissibility of the document alleged to have been executed on 02.09.2003, if produced by the defendant-respondent. It will always be open to the plaintiff to challenge the execution, mode of production and admissibility of the said document. In case it is so challenged, it will be open to the trial Court to consider the objections and adjudicate upon the relevancy, admissibility, execution or mode of production and to reject or accept the document. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) page 615, to contend that agreement of sale reduced in writing does not require any stamp duty, but stamp duty will be required to be paid only if possession is alleged to have been delivered. . . . 3 C.R.No.319 of 2009 It will be open to the defendant-respondent to contest the admissibility of the document before the trial Court by referring to different legal provisions and case law. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 03, 2009. rka . . . 4