CIVIL REVISION NO.3587 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 02, 2008 Leena Dutta .....Petitioner VERSUS Rajinder Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead secondary evidence has been dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The petitioner had sought permission to lead secondary evidence by producing in evidence a compromise/divorce deed dated 29.5.2001 in order to show that her marriage with Vineet Pabby was dissolved by way of compromise through the said decree as per the custom governing the parties. Thereafter, she had contracted the CIVIL REVISION NO.3587 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: present marriage with the respondent. By pointing out that the original deed is in the custody of earlier husband, permission was sought to lead the secondary evidence in regard to this compromise/divorce deed. The respondent filed his objection to the plea raised by the petitioner to urge that there was no such custom by which such a divorce is recognized and also that such an application is not maintainable on the principle of estoppel as earlier this stand was never taken by the petitioner. Application otherwise is also alleged to be totally misconceived. The Court noticed that this petition is filed on 3.9.2002 and the deed of compromise/divorce is dated 29.5.2001. The document, thus, was found to be one which was in existence prior to the filing of a divorce petition. The Court is justified in observing that if indeed this document was in existence, then it was bound to be reflected in the petition that was filed on 3.9.2003. The Court is also right in observing that if the marriage had been dissolved through this document, then there was no need for filing the divorce petition that too after two and a half years. In short, the very existence of this document is doubted. The petitioner has not been able to remove this doubt and prove that this document is genuine or in existence. It is essential for the petitioner to first prove the existence of a document and also that it has been lost for him to become entitled to lead the secondary evidence of such a document. The petitioner has pleaded that the original of the document is in the custody of her previous husband. There is no averment that he is out of reach or not subject to the CIVIL REVISION NO.3587 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: process of the Court, which was essential to be established before becoming entitled to lead the secondary evidence. Thus, the necessary ingredients to enable the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in regard to this document are missing. The petitioner, thus, has failed to make out a case for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. May 02,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE