C. R. No. 4197 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4197 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 23, 2010 Ved Kundu .... Petitioner Vs. Krishan and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 16939-C of 2010 : Application is allowed and certified copy of order Annexure P-1 annexed with the application is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Plaintiff Ved Kundu has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 25.05.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh, thereby dismissing plaintiff's application for permission to lead secondary C. R. No. 4197 of 2010 (O&M) 2 evidence of agreement to sell dated 17.01.2006 and receipt dated 20.02.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Permission to lead secondary evidence of the documents was sought on the ground that the same were seized by the police in FIR No.455 dated 06.10.2006, which was pending adjudication in criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the same contention before me. However, case of the plaintiff-petitioner does not fall within any of the clauses in Section 65 of the Evidence Act, so as to permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence of the documents. The documents have neither been destroyed nor lost nor the said documents are in possession of the opposite party. Consequently, application for permission to lead secondary evidence of the documents has rightly been declined by the trial court. In addition to the aforesaid, the criminal case, in which the said documents were seized, has already been decided, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. In view thereof, the plaintiff was at liberty to take back the said documents from the file of the criminal case and to produce the same. Even if the criminal case had not been decided, the plaintiff-petitioner could have summoned the file of the criminal case containing the original documents to prove the same. Thus, examined from any angle, no case for leading secondary C. R. No. 4197 of 2010 (O&M) 3 evidence of the documents in question is made out. The application moved for this purpose was completely misconceived and so also the present revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine being devoid of any merit. July 23, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE