Civil Revision No. 7283 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7283 of 2009 Date of decision : July 02, 2010 Baljit Kaur ....Petitioner versus Smt. Jagir Kaur and another ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 None for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Baljit Kaur has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 18.9.2009, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baba Bakala whereby application Annexure P/2 moved by plaintiff- petitioner for leading secondary evidence of agreement to sell dated 29.8.2004 and affidavit dated 13.6.2005 has been dismissed. Petitioner has filed suit vide plaint Annexure P/4 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.8.2004 allegedly executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff pleaded that the aforesaid agreement has been lost and photostat copy Civil Revision No. 7283 of 2009 -2- thereof was attached with the plaint. In the application, Annexure P/2 also the plaintiff pleaded that the agreement and the affidavit have been misplaced for which report was lodged with Police Station on 11.7.2005. Defendants contested the application by filing reply, Annexure P/3. It was, inter-alia, alleged that previous application moved by plaintiff for leading secondary evidence of the documents was dismissed as not pressed on 4.2.2008 and therefore, second application for the same relief does not lie. It was also pleaded that on 23.1.2009, plaintiff undertook to conclude her evidence on next date of hearing and last opportunity was granted but on 6.3.2009, the next date of hearing, the plaintiff examined four witnesses including herself and then also moved application Annexure P/2 on 6.3.2009 itself. On merits also allegations made in the application were controverted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. At the outset it has to be noticed that in the plaint Annexure P/4, loss of agreement only was pleaded and loss of affidavit dated 13.6.2005 was not even pleaded. In addition to it when plaintiff's first application for adducing secondary evidence was dismissed as not pressed, it is not explained how the plaintiff is entitled to seek the same relief by moving second application. Moreover, issues in the case were framed on 27.11.2006 and thereafter, the plaintiff availed of many opportunities for her evidence and on 23.1.2009, the plaintiff gave undertaking to conclude her evidence on the next date of hearing i.e. 6.3.2009 and it was on 6.3.2009 that the plaintiff moved application for secondary evidence. However, on Civil Revision No. 7283 of 2009 -3- 6.3.2009 as per undertaking of the plaintiff her evidence had to be concluded and closed. The application Annexure P/2 was thus moved very belatedly. Moreover, at the time of filing of suit itself, the plaintiff knew that the agreement in question had been misplaced but in spite thereof, the plaintiff moved application Annexure P/2 on 6.3.2009 only when it was last opportunity for her evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the petitioner's application for secondary evidence has been rightly declined by the trial court. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being without any merit. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 02, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'