CMPMO 256 of 2008. 15.9.2008 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. This is the defendant’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application of the defendant – respondent under Sections 53, 66 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for production of secondary evidence. The defendant-respondent moved an application praying permission to lead secondary evidence with respect to the proof of a receipt purported to have been executed by the plaintiff accepting the factum of payment of Rs.6,00,000/- The allegations made in the application were that this receipt was executed by the plaintiff acknowledging and accepting that a sum of Rs. Six lakhs had been paid in cash to the plaintiff in lieu of consideration for sale of land measuring 16 bighas 19 biswas which is the suit land. In reply, the plaintiff denied the receipt of Rs. 6 lakhs and further added “The receipt, if any, is forged and fabricated by the applicants in connivance with the witnesses. Since no transaction was taken place regarding the alleged sale of land, so the question of detaining the original receipt by the defendant/ respondent does not arise at all. The same was -2- never executed. The contents of para 1 of the application is altogether false and hence denied. The false case has been filed by the applicants before the police.” The learned trial Court, while considering the provisions of the Act, allowed the application granting permission to the applicant- defendant to lead secondary evidence to prove the purported copy of the receipt in possession of the defendant. While doing so, the learned trial Court has undertaken analysis of the evidence of the parties and then came to its conclusion. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the learned Court has gone wrong in law in allowing the application and has come to definite conclusions on the (a) factum of payment having been made by the defendant, (b) the veracity / quality of evidence led by the plaintiffs and the defendant, (c) definite conclusions on the evidence having been led by the parties and (d) brushing aside that the case of the plaintiffs is that no such receipt exists and if any such photo copy is produced, it is forged and fabricated. Considering the entirety of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction (a) that the defence set up by the plaintiffs that the receipt which has been produced is -3- forged and fabricated will be allowed to be proved by them for which purpose, the plaintiffs will be entitled to file such other or further pleadings and lead evidence in accordance with law to establish this fact, (b) the observations made by the learned trial Court on the quality of evidence led by the parties will be treated as tentative in nature and not concluding any fact or establishing the factum of payment having been made to the plaintiffs (c) the findings arrived at in this application shall not be treated to have been made on the merits of the respective cases of the parties. A further direction is issued that the plaintiffs are at liberty to prove their case independently on the objection raised to the receipt that mere production of receipt in evidence will not be sufficient to establish the factum of the contents thereof which will have to be proved allunde in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of. September 15, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.