IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3635 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.4.2009 Sher Singh ......Petitioner Versus Des Raj and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Patiala, whereby application of the petitioner for leading secondary evidence has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the plaintiff (petitioner herein) moved an application for leading secondary evidence to prove agreement to sell dated 8.5.1998 executed by defendant- respondent No.1. It was averred therein that the original agreement to sell was already on record and the petitioner wanted to compare the thumb mark/signatures, on the agreement to sell dated 8.5.1998, by comparing thumb mark/signatures from a document expert. It was further stated in the said application that out of the two attesting witnesses of the agreement in question, one had passed away while the other, namely, Gurdev Singh was discharged as he was hard of hearing and had lost his eye-sight and could not understood the questions put to him during the course of cross- examination. However, the aforesaid application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order after observing that there is no CR No.3635 of 2008 -2- ground to allow the petitioner to lead secondary evidence as the original document was already on record and it was for the plaintiff to prove his case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. From the undisputed facts, as stated above, it may be noticed that this is not a case of proving the document by leading secondary evidence as in fact, the original document is already on record. It was for the petitioner to prove the same in accordance with law by leading evidence in the manner provided under the law and in fact, the application filed by him for proving the aforesaid document by leading secondary evidence is misconceived. Therefore, I find no merit in this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the case is still at the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial Court to prove the aforesaid document by leading evidence in accordance with law. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, this revision petition is disposed of. April 21, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE