IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2803 of 2009 Date of decision:18.05.2009 Balwan Singh ...Petitioner versus Salinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Virender Singh Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) The revision is against the permission of the Court below in directing the receipt of copy of the agreement, being a secondary evidence of its original to be produced in Court. The objections by the defendant was that the so-called agreement was not true and there was no justification for production of the copy. The justification for production of the copy was that according to the plaintiff that the original has been destroyed when a subsequent agreement had been written. The truth or otherwise of the contention will be a matter that could be made at the time of cross-examination by impeaching the credibility of the statement. The approach of the trial Court in directing the receipt of the secondary evidence and giving the liberty to the defendant to question the plaintiff Civil Revision No.2803 of 2009 - 2 - on the truth of his statements is, in my view, appropriate approach that requires no interference in revision. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2009 sanjeev