CR No. 7980 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2645-CII of 2011 and CR No. 7980 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.11.2011 Ruldu Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Harbhej Singh & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Chanan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Plaintiffs, by claiming themselves to be the sons of Shital Singh have claimed inheritance of the property of Shital Singh, whereas the defendants are denying their relationship (plaintiffs) with Shital Singh. They also deny if Smt.Kartar Kaur is the wife of Shital Singh. The plaintiffs having come to know that Smt.Kartar Kaur had executed a sale deed in favour of one Sohan Lal over which one Upinder Kumar was a witness, summoned Upinder Kumar to prove CR No. 7980 of 2010 2 the sale deed so that their relationship could be established. Upinder Kumar appearing as PW 4 while admitting the purchase of the shop by Shital Singh denied if they are in possession of the sale deed. He stated that they had further sold the said shop and handed over the sale deed and he does not know as to who is in possession of the sale deed. Thus, the plaintiffs filed an application for proving the certified copy of the sale deed by way of secondary evidence but the trial court refused to allow the secondary evidence. Existence of sale deed is established from the testimony of Upinder Kumar (PW 4). Sale deed could not be traced as Upinder Kumar has stated that since the property changed hands, therefore, now he cannot tell as to who is in possession of the said sale deed. It may further be observed that the sale deed is quite important and relevant document for adjudicating the real question of controversy. As such, the trial court fell in error in not taking the aforesaid aspects into consideration and refuse secondary evidence. Consequently, interference at this stage has become inevitable. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to allow the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence subject to just exceptions and payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs. (A.N.Jindal) 7.11.2011 Judge rp