Civil Revision No.4238 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4238 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 31, 2008 Sawai Ram ...Petitioner VERSUS Ajit Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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: Mr.Pankaj Midha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Revision Nos.4238 of 2007 and 71 of 2008 (Sawai Ram v. Ajit Singh & others) . In Civil Revision No.4328 2007, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 4.8.2007, whereby his prayer for leading secondary evidence has been declined. In the second Revision Petition No.71 of 2008, the order under challenge is whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by an order. Civil Revision No.4238 of 2007 : 2 : The petitioner filed an application for leading secondary evidence in regard to sale deed No.621 dated 7.5.1991, executed by Laxmi Narain in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner filed this application with averment that the original sale deed was in possession of defendant No.4 and notice to him to produce the same has already been issued. The prayer of the petitioner was declined on the ground that no notice was given to defendant Nos.1 and 2 to produce the sale deed and thus the requirement of Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act was not made out. Though initially, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of Sections 65 and 66 of the Act in this case stood complied with and in this regard referred to the case of Jeet alias Ajeet Mehta Vs. Ms.Meena alias Sukhwinder, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 642. In this case, the plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint that the original was with the defendant and that he was given photo copy of the same at the time of taking advance. Accordingly, it was held by this court that requirement of Sections 65 and 65 stood complied with once the plaintiff had filed an application for issuance of directions to the defendant to produce the original. During the course of arguments, however, it was revealed that the petitioner has not been supplied with the copy of the sale deed and only averment made is that the original sale deed is in possession of defendant No.4. It was further revealed during the course of arguments that the petitioner was in possession of photo copy of the sale deed, but he could not show as to how he had come in possession of photo copy of sale deed if original had never been given to him or had not come to his Civil Revision No.4238 of 2007 : 3 : possession. Faced with this situation, the counsel for the petitioner pleads that he would move an application before the trial court to summon a witness from the office of Registrar to produce the copy of the sale deed lying in the said office. The counsel for the respondents, however, points out that the person from the office of Registrar was summoned and he had produced different sale deeds. It appears that sale deed No.621 dated 7.5.1991, however, was not got produced and that is how the request for leading secondary evidence in this regard was made. The counsel for the petitioner would point out to another difficulty that would stand in his way and that is the order whereby his evidence has been closed by an order of the court, which he has impugned in Revision Petition No.71 of 2008. In this regard, the counsel submits that court had been asked to defer the hearing, but this order could not be extended and hence the evidence of the petitioner was closed by an order. There cannot be much dispute that the best available evidence should be allowed to be produced before the court for proper decision/adjudication. The petitioner has not been able to show as to what form of secondary evidence he would produce in regard to this sale deed. It is under these circumstances that he has prayed for permission to move an application for summoning a witness from the office of Registrar to produce a copy of the sale deed lying in the said office. The order, whereby his evidence has been closed, of-course would stand in his way in this regard. Considering the fact that parties should be given a chance to substantiate their pleas, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner Civil Revision No.4238 of 2007 : 4 : to move this application before the trial court to summon a witness from the office of Registrar to produce the copy of the registered sale deed. The impugned order declining permission to lead secondary evidence will not call for any interference. Both the Revision Petition are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for summoning a witness from the office of Registrar. If the petitioner does so, the trial court would ignore the order whereby the evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed and which is under challenge. I have been persuaded to adopt this approach mainly on account of the fact that this court had directed the trial court to defer the hearing while entertaining the revision petition against the order declining the prayer of the petitioner for leading secondary evidence. The order closing the evidence was passed when the petitioner could not get this interim order extended. The trial court could reasonably be expected to await the outcome of the revision petition once it was directed to defer the hearing, even if such an order could not be got extended on one particular date. It appears that it is because of this reason only that on January 11, 2008 proceedings before the trial court were stayed. The permission to the petitioner to move an application for leading evidence by summoning a person from Registrar, in my view, would meet the ends of justice in this case. July 31, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE