1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2267 of 2008. Date of Decision: 22.7.2011 *** Avtar Singh & Anr. .. Petitioners VS. Ajit Singh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.B. Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved with the order dated 4.3.2011 vide which their prayer to prove the sale-deed dated 23.1.2001, by way of secondary evidence, has been dismissed. Heard. The case of the plaintiffs is that vide the aforesaid sale-deed dated 23.1.2001 defendant Ajit transferred some property in favour of one Ashok Kumar. Earlier the prayer made by the plaintiffs to confront Ajit Singh with regard to aforesaid sale-deed was declined by the learned trial Court, but was allowed by this Court. Accordingly, the defendant was confronted with the sale-deed. Later the plaintiffs summoned aforesaid Ashok Kumar along with the records of Sub Registrar and it came to the light that the original sale deed dated 23.1.2001 is with Ashok Kumar, who, initially gave statement to produce the same, but could not produce the same. Thus, it was the act and conduct of DW Ashok Kumar which forced the plaintiffs to file the impugned application. Even otherwise the certified copy of the sale-deed is already on record and only its formal proof is required. It is settled that to produce any document by way of secondary evidence, a party must have to prove its execution and existence and subsequently the loss of the same. In this view of the matter, it can be said 2 that the approach adopted by the learned trial Court is erroneous. Once the plaintiffs fulfilled the necessary ingredients to prove the sale deed dated 23.1.2001 by way of secondary evidence, their application ought to have been allowed by the Court below. Even otherwise, it is the suit of the petitioners and there is no gain in saying that they, in any way, are beneficiary in prolonging the lis. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to prove the sale-deed dated 23.1.2001 by way of secondary evidence. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 22,2011 Jiten