IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4396 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 22nd July, 2011 Pritpal Singh … Petitioner Versus Ashwani Kumar … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sama, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) to lead secondary evidence and prove affidavit dated 2nd May, 2005 executed by Karnail Singh son of Surain Singh in favour of one Buta Singh. The said application was allowed vide impugned order dated 27th April, 2011 and notice was issued to Buta Singh and Karnail Singh to produce the affidavit in original. The Court held that after the affidavit is produced, it will be seen as to whether provisions of Section 66 of the Act will apply or not. In the suit filed for specific performance, it was specifically stated in para No.3 that as per the agreement to sell, the petitioner- defendant had to provide and arrange a passage and water channel to the land in question. Mr.Ashok Kumar Sama, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant has shown me the written statement filed by the Civil Revision No.4396 of 2011 (O&M) petitioner-defendant wherein it has been stated that no passage has been provided by the Government but the same has been carved out after mutual consent. To decide the issue of passage, production of affidavit (Annexure P-4) is necessary. Thus, no infirmity is discernible in the impugned order and hence, no ground is made out to cause any interference. The present revision petition stands dismissed accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 22, 2011 rps 2