C.R. No. 895 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 895 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.8.2009 Angrej Chand .......... Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Talwandi Sabo vide which application moved by the petitioner to lead secondary evidence to prove the deed of family settlement dated 28.4.1994 and receipt dated 11.5.1994, has been allowed. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of partition of the suit property. The suit was contested by taking a plea therein that the property in dispute is under the ownership and possession of the defendant/ respondent. In order to prove the case, the defendant / respondent moved an C.R. No. 895 of 2009 2 application for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence on the plea that the original agreement and receipt were handed over to the petitioner / plaintiff, but he wrongly denied the family settlement. It was also the case of the respondent, that the family settlement and receipt are in possession of the plaintiff / petitioner, who has failed to produce the same, therefore, necessity arose to prove the documents by way of secondary evidence. The application was opposed on the plea, that the defendant / respondent concealed the material facts, as in the civil suit No. 723 of 23.11.1998 filed by the defendant / respondent, the respondent had produced the said writing, but these were disregarded being not admissible in evidence, being unregistered document. The suit filed by the defendant / respondent was consequently dismissed, the appeal also failed. The order attained finality. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiff / petitioner also filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant / respondent from interfering in his possession, but he also failed, as the defendant / respondent were held to be in possession of the suit property. The suit of partition was thereafter filed. The learned trial Court accepted the application primarily on the ground, that the conditions necessary for allowing secondary evidence stood proved, as it was averred by the defendant / respondent that the original was in possession of the plaintiff, who failed to produce it in spite of notice. The learned trial Court held that the merits of the case could not be gone into as the legality of the document as to whether the document is C.R. No. 895 of 2009 3 admissible or inadmissible was to be seen at the time of final arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground, that the document now sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence has been rejected inter se between the parties, in the previous suit by holding, that the family settlement cannot be read in evidence for want of registration. Once as document cannot be read in evidence in view of the decision inter se between the parties there was no reason for the Court to have allowed the secondary evidence, as no useful purpose is likely to be served, even if the defendant / respondent proved the document, as it could not read into evidence for want of registration, and in view of finding recorded inter se in earlier suit. The learned counsel for the respondent contends, that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Singh Vs. Inderjit Kaur 1999(2) Apex Court Journal 50, this Court at this stage cannot reject the application for additional evidence as it is not open to the Court to take note of the fact that the documents sought to be produced is of doubtful veracity, as this opinion is to be formed after the parties lead evidence. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. It is not a case where the veracity of the document is disputed. This document has been rejected to be read in evidence, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it would only delay the proceedings. The additional evidence will not in any way advance the case of respondent / defendant, even by proving this document C.R. No. 895 of 2009 4 by way of additional evidence. This revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The application moved by the respondent / defendant for leading secondary evidence is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs. 26.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE