Civil Revision No. 5950 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5950 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 27.09.2011 Jagbir and another .... Petitioners Versus Jagat Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Dr. Praveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.23663-CII of 2011 Application for permission to file certified copy of Annexure P-2 is allowed. CR No.5950 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.8.2011(Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for permission to lead secondary evidence regarding photocopy of a compromise dated 6.7.2007 having the seal of Police Civil Revision No. 5950 of 2011 --2-- Station, Narnaund and signatures of Station House Officer as also the signatures of the parties had been dismissed. In the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2/3rd share of land measuring 245 kanals 15 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Khanda Kheri Sub Tehsil Bass District Hisar, and that defendant no.2 is not the wife of Jagat Singh, defendant no.1 the writing dated 6.7.2007 has been claimed to be about a compromise arrived at the police station wherefrom a copy thereof had been issued. As the original record is not available with the police, the plaintiffs filed an application for permission to lead secondary evidence regarding the contents of the compromise dated 6.7.2007. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the plaintiffs- petitioners claimed the compromise to have been finalised between the parties under which respondent no.1 was to transfer his property in the name of the petitioners to the extent of their share. According to the petitioners, the original writing was not traceable in the police station and the petitioners are possessed of a photocopy thereof with the seal of the police station and they sought permission to produce the said photocopy as secondary evidence of the compromise. The application was opposed by the respondents. The claim of the petitioners is alleged to be malafide. They are alleged to be trying to produce and prove a forged document which never came into existence. According to them, in the modern age, a photocopy could be fabricated very easily. Civil Revision No. 5950 of 2011 --3-- Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application primarily for the reason that the photocopy did not satisfy the provisions of section 65(a) of the Evidence Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have brought this revision petition. I have heard Dr. Praveen Hans, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioners has submitted that the parties had a dispute and they were before the police of Police Station Narnaund, where they reached a settlement. According to him, the original is not available with the police station and its photocopy given to the plaintiffs is with them. According to him, this circumstance clearly shows that the photocopy of the document could be proved by way of secondary evidence of the said document. He has cited before me several decisions reported as Manwari Kumhar and others v. Bnhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and another (2006)6 Supreme Court Cases 735, Satyajeet Singh Bedi v. Arun Juneja and others, 2010(3) PLR 275 , Nawab Singh v. Inderjit Kaur, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1668 and Ashok Kumar Sachdeva v. Harish Malik 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 311. The aforesaid decisions except Nawab Singh's case (supra) are in cases where the original was established as lost. In Nawab Singh's case (supra) the original was in the possession of the landlord and the tenant wanted to prove a photocopy thereof. The case before me Civil Revision No. 5950 of 2011 --4-- is where the petitioners claim rights to property to have been settled by way of writing created at the police station. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the original has been lost. If the parties were before the police station in connection with some dispute and the matter was settled by way of this document, some entry in the daily dairy was at least required to be made That daily diary entry could prove such a document to have come into existence at the police station. When the very existence of the document is denied by the defendants and is not prima-facie proved to have been lost, secondary evidence regarding the same could not be allowed. For these reasons, the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners do not stand attracted to the facts of this case. The revision petition is, consequently, found to have no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 27.09.2011 dinesh