C.R. No. 4950 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4950 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 1, 2009 Satish Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. Ramesh Chand …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the plaintiff- respondent has been allowed to enable the plaintiff- respondent to prove the agreement of sale dated July 15, 2004. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a false story regarding the existence and loss of the agreement of sale has been concocted by the plaintiff- respondent and that the trial Court has acted illegally in permitting C.R. No. 4950 of 2008 [2] the plaintiff- respondent to lead secondary evidence. The present revision petition seems to have been filed with misconception. Vide impugned order, a presumption has been attached regarding the existence, execution, loss or contents of the agreement of sale. It is made clear that the impugned order will not, in any manner, tentamount to arrive at a presumption that existence, loss, execution, contents and admissibility of the alleged document has been admitted. Despite the impugned order, the onus will lie upon the respondent to establish that the said agreement of sale was actually executed or that it was lost, as alleged. He will have to establish its execution, contents and will have to establish its admissibility. Dismissed. September 1, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE