C.R.No.3038 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3038 of 2011 Date of decision: 6.5.2011 Pawan Kumar and another ….Petitioners Vs. Kewal Krishan and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioners-defendant Nos.5 & 6 have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala whereby the application of plaintiff-respondent No.1 to lead secondary evidence was partly allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit No.59 dated 28.2.2006 for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application for permission to lead secondary evidence of the lease agreement dated 16.11.2005, 16.12.2005, original lease deed dated 14.2.2006 and notice dated 10.2.2006 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Upon notice, the same was opposed by defendant Nos.5 & 6- petitioners by filing reply. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial C.R.No.3038 of 2011 #2# Court has partly allowed the application, hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error of law while allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to lead the secondary evidence of the documents mentioned above and the same is violative of the provisions of Section 63 of the Evidence Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the defendants- petitioners made a statement on an earlier occasion before the learned trial Court that the original lease deed dated 14.2.2006 is with the Department, however, the rest of the documents i.e lease agreement dated 16.11.2005, 16.12.2005 and notice dated 10.2.2006 is not in their possession. In view of such a situation, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is left with no alternative except to prove the same by way of secondary evidence. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the lease agreements dated 16.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 are between one Babu Singh son of Santokh Singh and the other party to the suit. Section 65 of the Evidence Act clearly says that when the original document appears to be in possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or of any person out of reach or not subject to, the process of the court the secondary evidence regarding the existence, condition or contents of such a document may be given. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion while partly allowing the application of the plaintiff- C.R.No.3038 of 2011 #3# respondent No.1 to lead the secondary evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. May 06, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE