Civil Revision No.4461 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4461 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.04.2009. Gurdit Singh Petitioner Versus Smt. Channo ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Ms. Sushma Chopra,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Chandi, Advocate for the respondent ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.17,800/- (Rs.15000/- as principal amount and Rs.2800/- as interest thereupon at the rate of 12%) on an averment that the defendant-respondent had taken a loan of Rs.15,000/- from him and had executed a pro-note and receipt in lieu thereof. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2007. In appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, reversed the finding and ordered dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner argued that the learned Trial Court had recorded valid Civil Revision No.4461 of 2008 -2- *** reasoning in favour of the finding of the decretal of the suit and the learned Ist Appellate court did not record reasons adequate enough to invalidate the finding by the former Court. The plea is denuded of merit. The reasons therefor are as under:- It is apparent from the record that the original pro-note and receipt never ever saw the light of the day during the trial. In the petition itself, the plaintiff-petitioner had made an averment that he had misplaced the pro-note and receipt and had lodged a report in the context with the Police of Police Station, Lohian. He applied for the decretal of the suit on the basis of entries made in the register of the Deed Writer. Inspite thereof, no plea for the leave of the Court to adduce secondary evidence ever came to be filed or allowed by the learned Trial Court. This is the precise premise noticed by the learned Ist Appellate Court for non suiting the plaintiff-petitioner. A party, applying for the grant of relief of indicated category ought to produce the original documentation on the record. If the original documentation is not forthcoming for valid reasons, the party applying for the grant of relief has to aver and to prove it and, on the basis thereof, apply for the leave of the Court to adduce secondary evidence. The procedural law has adequate in-built arrangement for adducing of secondary evidence in case the originals are not available or cannot be produced before the Court. At the same time, if a party does not apply for and obtain the leave of the Court in the relevant behalf, it cannot ask for decretal of the cause on the basis of secondary evidence which may have come to Civil Revision No.4461 of 2008 -3- *** be unauthorisedly recorded at the hands of the learned Trial Court. The consideration of secondary evidence has to be preceded by the allowance of reception thereof as secondary evidence. In that view of things, the learned District Judge had appropriately noticed that that the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner could not have been decreed for want of production of the pro-note and receipt. In that context, the learned Ist Appellate Court also noticed that the plaintiff-petitioner had not adduce any evidence to prove that the pro-note and receipt had been validly stamped. Apart therefrom, it also noticed that the names of Malkiat Singh and Harbans Singh had been noticed as attesting witness of the transaction in the register maintained by the scribe who was examined at the trial. As against it, the plaintiff-petitioner had examined Darshan Singh as an attesting witness of the receipt. His name does not at all figure in the register of the scribe as an attesting witness of the transaction aforementioned. No other point was argued. In the light of the forgoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. April 24, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge