IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 616 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 29, 2010 Jugal Kishore …Petitioner Versus Harjinder Singh. ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. Documentation consisting of Ex.A1 to A3 came to be marked as exhibits in the course of the affidavit which AW1 – Harjinder Singh/respondent tendered into evidence in lieu of examination in chief. Exh. A1 to A3 purport to be rent note, map of shop and copy of alleged rent receipt respectively. The defendant – petitioner herein raised a plea before the learned Trial Court that those documents could not to be deemed to have been validly proved and, thus, those should be de-exhibited. It was also an averment in the context that the affidavit aforementioned could not be tendered into evidence in the absence of the learned counsel for the defendant – petitioner. It was also averred, in the course of the C.R. No. 616 of 2010 application, that the rent agreement was a forged and fabricated document and that it was, even otherwise, not admissible in evidence for want of registration. Exh. A2 and A3 were also described to be forged and fabricated documents. The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction that the learned Trial Court shall decide upon the admissibility of the documentation aforementioned and also take a decision about whether proper mode of proof had been adopted in the exhibition thereof or not. It is apparent that such like documents could just not have been exhibited in the course of the affidavit itself. Disposed of accordingly. January 29, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2