IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.595 of 2009 Date of decision : July 28, 2010 M/s Sirikrishna Minerals Mines & Traders and another …Petitioners. Versus Arun Kumar Bansal and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners have filed a suit against the respondents, for recovery of money, alleging that they were doing business, in partnership, with the defendants- respondents and that ultimately when the partnership was dissolved, a sum of money, equivalent to the suit money, was found due to them and a writing, with regard to settlement, at the time of dissolution of the firm, was also prepared, original of which was retained by the defendants- respondents and its Photostat copy was given to the plaintiffs-petitioners. Defendants-respondents denied the existence of any such document. 2. Issues were framed and the parties led evidence also. Petitioners then moved an application, seeking Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence of the alleged document, by proving its photocopy, which they claimed was given to them. That application was opposed by the defendants-respondents. They denied the existence of any such document and pleaded that there was a dispute between defendant-respondent Arun Kumar Bansal and his elder brother, with respect to a Truck and that petitioner Virender Singh, who had been helping the respondent in auditing his accounts, got that dispute settled and obtained signatures of respondent No.1 as also of the brother of respondent No.1 on a blank paper and that blank paper has been used by him to forge the alleged settlement deed. 3. Trial Court recorded evidence, with respect to application, under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. It concluded that the evidence suggested that there existed a document, which was retained by the defendants- respondents. However, it disallowed the application for secondary evidence, on the grounds that no notice, in terms of Section 66 of the Evidence Act, had been given to the defendants-respondents and also the document was inadmissible in evidence, on account of its being under- stamped. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. There was hardly any need for issuance of notice, in terms of Section 66 of the Evidence Act, when the …3… plaintiffs, in the plaint itself, had taken the plea that there was a settlement deed, a copy of which was available with them and the original had been kept with the defendants- respondents. Copy of the plaint was supplied to the defendants-respondents and they even filed written statement thereto. That means, the defendants-respondents had the notice that the plaintiffs-petitioners were alleging the existence of the document, in question. 6. Clause (2) of proviso to Section 66 of the Evidence Act says that when the other party is in the know that it will be required to produce the document, notice, under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, need not be served. Since the petitioners, as already noticed, based their suit on the document, respondents were supposed to be knowing that they would be called upon to produce the document, as the petitioners stated that the original document was with them (the respondents). 7. As regards the second ground, suffice it to say that an unstamped or under-stamped document can also be received in evidence, subject to payment of stamp duty and the penalty ten times the stamp duty or the deficiency in stamp duty. 8. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, prayer of the plaintiffs-petitioners for leading secondary evidence of the document is allowed. However, it is made …4… clear that the document shall have to be proved, as per law, and the defendants-respondents shall have the right to raise all objections about its genuineness, execution, inadmissibility, on account of non-stamping, etc. during the course of trial. Petition stands disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 7th September, 2010. Record be returned immediately. July 28, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J