C.R. No.4374 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.4374 of 2007 Date of Decision: 7.2.2008 Nirmal Kanta .....Petitioner Vs. Bharat Bhushan Satia and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. S.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sumit Makkar, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) By way of this revision, the petitioner impugns an order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, granting liberty to respondents no.1 and 2, to lead secondary evidence and to prove the contents of notice dated 30.9.2002 allegedly served on behalf of respondents no.3 to 5, upon respondents no.1 and 2, as also a reply in respect thereof. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner states that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law by permitting respondents no.1 and 2, to lead secondary evidence, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that in a review/recalling petition, filed by the petitioner, the learned trial Court has modified the impugned order and has held as follows :- C.R. No.4374 of 2007 2 “In view of the discussion made above, the plaintiff has failed to establish grounds to recall the order dated 24.9.2002. The contesting defendant is entitled to lead secondary evidence to prove the notice and its reply subject to proof of its existence and subsequent loss.” The said fact is not denied by counsel for the petitioner. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the learned trial Court has already, passed an order that secondary evidence would be subject to proof of its existence and subsequent loss in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the revision petition does not call for any further adjudication and is disposed of as such. 7.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE