C.R. No. 3444 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3444 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 24, 2011 Smt.Gurdev Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. Hamir Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide order dated April 18, 2011, an application filed by the plaintiff- respondent for secondary evidence in a suit for specific performance has been allowed permitting the plaintiff- respondent to produce the photocopy of the agreement of sale with endorsements and to prove the same in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said document has been wrongly permitted to be produced on the record by way of C.R. No. 3444 of 2011 [2] secondary evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that no doubt, the execution of the original agreement dated May 13, 2005 has been admitted by the defendant- petitioner in her pleadings but the endorsements which are alleged to have been made on or at the back of the agreement regarding receipt of money by the defendant- petitioner or extension of time of sale are concerned, these are not admitted as such a great prejudice would be caused to the defendant- petitioner by the order passed by the trial Court allowing the production of secondary evidence regarding the agreement dated May 13,2005 and its endorsements. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that since the execution of the agreement dated May 13, 2005 is not in much controversy, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in permitting the production of secondary evidence regarding the agreement dated May 13, 2005. Since the endorsements on the said agreement are not admitted, the permission to produce the secondary evidence of the document might cause prejudice to the petitioner. Noting the contentions of counsel for the defendant- petitioner, it is observed that the production of secondary evidence regarding the agreement dated May 13, 2005 will not, in any manner, absolve the plaintiff- respondent from the onus to prove the execution of the agreement dated May 13, 2005 and the execution of the endorsements which were alleged to have been made and noticed at the back of the agreement dated May 13, 2005. It is further observed that mere permission of production of secondary evidence is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner. The permission to produce the secondary evidence C.R. No. 3444 of 2011 [3] will not absolve the plaintiff- respondent to establish the execution, validity, admissibility and relevance of the document which has been permitted to be proved by secondary evidence. Disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. May 24, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE