IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.07.2010 C.R.No.7695 of 2009 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 3.10.2009 permitting the plaintiff to prove registered mortgage deed dated 10.03.1959 and two sale deeds No.1300 and 1301 dated 9.11.2000 by way of secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned trial Court is based upon incorrect facts. It is contended that the finding recorded that the defendant has not denied the registered mortgage deed is incorrect and that the plaintiff has not satisfied the conditions precedent for permitting the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if, the findings recorded by the trial Court that the existence and execution of the documents is not denied by the defendant is not correct, but still the documents have been rightly permitted to be proved by way of secondary evidence. C.R.No.7695 of 2009 The documents sought to be proved are registered documents i.e. mortgage deed and the sale deeds. The defendant was called upon to produce the sale deeds. Though sale deed No.1300 was shown to the counsel for the plaintiff, but the other sale deed has not been produced. In view of the said fact, the condition precedent for leading of secondary evidence stands proved, as the defendant has failed to produce the sale deed No.1301. The mortgage deed is a registered document and more than 30 years old. There is presumption of execution of such document. Since the document is registered and is more than 30 years old, the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in permitting such registered documents to be proved by secondary evidence. Proof of such documents is fair, reasonable and advances the cause of justice. There is no failure of justice, if such documents are produced on record. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 12.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2