Civil Revision No.2198 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2198 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:01.08.2011 Nirmla Devi & Ors. ....petitioners Versus Kanta Verma & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 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.Jasbir Rattan,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Swapan Shorey, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is landlords' petition challenging the impugned order dated 11.02.2011, passed by the Rent Controller, Dhuri, whereby request of the petitioners for allowing them to prove photo copy of the receipt dated 24.01.2004 by way of secondary evidence, as the respondent-tenant has failed to produce the original, has been declined. As per the averments, the petitioners-landlords want to prove the receipt dated 24.01.2004,wherein, it has been alleged that petitioner No.1 issued a receipt to the respondent-tenant regarding the payment of rent w.e.f.24.01.2004 to 23.01.2007 and which was signed by the respondent. The application was moved on the grounds that petitioners had earlier filed an application for production of the original receipt, however, the respondent did not produce the same. The said receipt was essential to be proved, by way of secondary evidence and the photocopy of Civil Revision No.2198 of 2011(O & M) 2 the same was already available on the file. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioners was contested by the respondent-tenant stating that no such receipt was ever issued to him as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the alleged photo copy is a result of forgery. Vide impugned order, the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners was rejected by observing as under: I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on the file. In the present application, the petitioners have sought the permission to prove the photocopy of the receipt dated 24.01.2004 by way of secondary evidence as the original has not been produced by the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent has alleged that no receipt was issued, rather the petitioners have got this photo copy of the receipt fabricated in connivance with the marginal witnesses. Now, the question which arises for consideration before the court is whether the permission to lead the secondary evidence to prove the photocopy of the receipt dated 24.01.2004 can be granted. The answer is in the negative. Only photo copy of the document has been placed on the file. The original document has not been produced on the record. There is nothing on the file to show that how the applicant/petitioners have procured its photo copy. Moreover, the document itself is an unstamped Civil Revision No.2198 of 2011(O & M) 3 document and copy of an unstamped document which is required to be proved cannot be proved by way of secondary evidence. Therefore, in view of discussion made above, the application in hand being devoid of any merit is ordered to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents placed on record of this revision petition. Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act, read thus: Section 65 Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given: Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:-- (a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power--of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to,the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his Civil Revision No.2198 of 2011(O & M) 4 own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence; (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. Section 66. Rules as to notice to produce. Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to Civil Revision No.2198 of 2011(O & M) 5 give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, [or to his attorney or pleader,] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case: Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:-- (1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice; (2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it; (3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force; (4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court; (5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document; (6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have moved an application before the Rent Controller, Dhuri, directing the respondent- tenant to produce the aforesaid original receipt, however, the same was Civil Revision No.2198 of 2011(O & M) 6 not produced submitting that no such receipt was ever issued. Thus, in view of the provisions of Sections 65 and 66, the petitioners were entitled to lead secondary evidence of the aforesaid receipt. The evidentiary value of the aforesaid receipt, at this stage, is not relevant. The observations of the Rent Controller, that photocopy of the aforesaid receipt is not stamped and is contrary to the pleadings of the petitioner, is incorrect as the photocopy of the aforesaid receipt, in question, has been placed before this Court and the same shows that it is duly stamped. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the prayer of the petitioners to prove the receipt dated 24.01.2004 by way of secondary evidence is allowed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Dhuri, on the date already fixed by the trial Court. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 01.08.2011 neenu