Civil Revision No. 7118 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7118 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.4.2010 Pritam Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Jagjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. G.N.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-defendant did succeed in obtaining the leave of the Court to amend the written statement and to raise a plea therein that she had entered into a customary divorce with her first husband. However, the plea raised by her for being allowed to adduce secondary evidence in respect thereof was not allowed by the learned Trial Court. The plea was based upon an averment that the customary divorce deed had been handed over by her to her husband Biker Singh who died thereafter. That customary deed is not traceable. It is under that compulsion of circumstances that defendant-petitioner applied for the leave of the Trial Court to adduce secondary evidence (in the form of photo-copy of original customary divorce). In negativing the plea, learned Trial Court observed that Civil Revision No. 7118 of 2009 -2- **** although the defendant/petitioner had been allowed to amend the written statement she had not placed original documentation on record. On that account, the learned Trial Court felt that “the applicant wants to avoid the criminal liability as she did not produce the original customary divorce.” The learned Trial Court further observed as under:- “Moreover from the photostate copy of such a document, no inference can be drawn.” Both the grounds, from which sustenance was drawn by learned Trial Court, deserve to be negatived. The non production of the original documentation cannot form the basis of negativing of a plea for adducing secondary evidence because the latter category of evidence would be adduced only in an eventuality where the former category of evidence is not available. Whether the defendant- petitioner wants to avoid criminal liability or not is not a fact which ought to have weighed the leaned Trial Court in negativing the plea for secondary evidence. For opposing the plea, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that the photostat copy would not be serve the purpose as the signatures thereon cannot be got compared. In the context, it is pointed that the plaintiff-respondent may like to offer a denial of the signatures appearing on the alleged customary divorce. The raised is devoid of merit. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that though a photo-stat copy cannot be considered to be an original documentation, it also cannot be denied Civil Revision No. 7118 of 2009 -3- **** that a proper photostat copy would be reflective of entire documentation with clarity which would be equal to that of original thereof in the context. In that view of things, it is inappropriate to argue that the plaintiff-respondent would not be able to get the comparison of signatures etc. (appearing thereon) done. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, then, has a grievance that the matter would eventually got delay by few years because the defendant-petitioner would take time to conclude evidence. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The defendant-petitioner is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove customary divorce deed. The matter is already listed for 11.5.2010 before the learned Trial Court. The defendant-petitioner shall positively conclude the evidence on that date and shall not be entitled to any further adjournment. Disposed of accordingly. April 26, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge