IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3677 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.08.2010 Gurbir Singh & Others ........Petitioners Versus Chhindo @ Sukhwinder Kaur .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ****** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran, whereby the application of the defendants to lead secondary evidence to prove the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.05.1994 was rejected and evidence of the defendant was also closed. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants vehemently argued that original sale deed dated 16.05.1994 was lost somewhere hence need arose to produce the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.05.1994 on the record. Secondary evidence is required to be produced before the trial Court, which was wrongly refused by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that since sale deed does not require any attestation hence it has to be proved as per Section 72 of the Evidence Act. Hence, in all fairness, defendants should be permitted to lead the secondary evidence to prove to the execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that although all the presumptions pertaining to execution of registered sale deed are in favour of the petitioners as per provisions of Registration Act, however, to avoid legal complications, secondary evidence is required to prove the sale deed dated 16.05.1994. Civil Revision No.3677 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants further states that on the date fixed by this Court, defendants shall adduce entire evidence before the trial Court and no further adjournment shall be sought from the trial Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that defendants has caused delay in the trial of the suit, hence plaintiff must be compensated by way of costs. Considering all the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that sale deed is a registered document and certified copy thereof is to be produced on record and sale deed does not require any attestation, hence, in all fairness, an opportunity should have been granted to the defendants to prove the certified copy of the sale deed by way of secondary evidence. In the opinion of this Court, defendants should be granted one last opportunity to produce all his witnesses before the learned trial Court to prove the defence case and the sale deed subject to payment of cost. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25.08.2010. Learned trial Court shall fix a date on which defendants shall produce all the witnesses and evidence to prove the sale deed dated 16.05.1994 and to prove his case. If witnesses are produced on the date fixed by the trial Court, same shall be examined/cross-examined/re-examined as the case may be, in accordance with law. Learned trial Court may hold examination on the day to day basis or on any subsequent date as fixed by learned trial Court. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted either of the party. Petitioners-defendants shall pay Rs.20,000/- to the respondent as cost before the next date fixed. August 11, 2010 (ALOK SINGH) Gagan JUDGE