IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.160 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.6.2008. Naresh Kumar and others …..Petitioners -Versus- Smt.Sushmna Sharma and another ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: None Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Amb. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from digging foundations, raising any sort of construction or changing the nature of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants wanted to produce on record certified copies of certain documents. It is not in dispute before me that the originals of these documents were already filed in another suit titled as Sushmna Sharma vs. Ram Parkash. An application Annexure P-1 was filed by defendants on 9th August, 2004 seeking permission to place on record the certified copies of the agreements dated 31.10.1990, 6.12.1990, 23.3.1992 and 24.3.1992. This application was initially contested and remained pending for almost four years. On 2nd February, 2008 counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he has no objection to the prayer being granted subject to payment of heavy costs. Consequently, an order was passed on 2nd February, 2008 and the application was allowed 2 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. The matter was adjourned to 10th April, 2008. On the next date the defendants filed the certified copies of the agreements dated 31.10.1990, 6.12.1990, 23.3.1992 and 24.3.1992. The plaintiffs objected to the filing of the same on two grounds, firstly that the said certified copies should have been annexed with the original application; according to the counsel for the plaintiffs even though no objection had been raised the fact that certified copies had not been filed on or before 2nd February, 2008 rendered the order of the Court infructuous and fresh order should have been obtained for placing the same on record. Secondly it was contended that the documents are certified copies of the agreements and without obtaining permission under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act the defendants could not be permitted to lead secondary evidence. The learned trial Court allowed the defendants to place on record the documents and prove the same. Hence, this petition. I have heard Sh.Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioners. After going through the documents and hearing Mr.Kuthiala, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the learned trial Court suffers from no defect. In the application, a prayer was made that the defendants may be allowed to produce and prove the certified copies of the documents. This prayer was allowed. There is nothing in the application or the order which indicates that the certified copies had already been filed with the application. Only Photostat copies were attached with the application. Therefore, the production of the certified copies on the next date amounts to compliance with the orders of the trial Court and does not in any way negate the earlier order passed by the trial Court. As far as the second ground is concerned, no doubt there is no formal application moved under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Sh.Kuthiala is absolutely right that normally secondary evidence should not be allowed to be lead without an application being filed. However, I find that in the present 3 case the circumstances are slightly different. Even in the original application it was mentioned that the original documents are on the file of Sushmna Sharma vs. Ram Parkash and the defendants wanted to place on record the certified copies of the said documents. Once it is not disputed that the originals of the said documents are on the file of the other case it is but obvious that in both the cases the original documents cannot be produced. Therefore, in the second case the permission to prove the documents by leading secondary evidence and proving the certified copies had to be granted. Normally, an application should have been moved but keeping in view the fact that the suit is of the year 1998 and the application remained pending for almost four years, I feel that it would not be in the interest of justice to delay the proceedings on this technical ground. The learned trial Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law. There is no jurisdictional error in the order calling for interference in exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. June 16, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge