Civil Revision No.5208 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5208 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:29.08.2011 Darbara Singh @ Dalbara Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Amarjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Amarjit Singh son of Piara Singh-respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Darbara Singh @ Dalbara Singh son of Charna Singh-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 4 to 6 and other defendants(for short “the defendants”) for a decree of declaration. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for permission to prove the sale-deed dated 18.07.1959 by way of secondary evidence, the certified copy of which is already on record. 3. The trial Court accepted the application and permitted the plaintiff to prove the indicated sale-deed by way of secondary evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 02.08.2011, which in substance is, as under:- “Arguments of counsel for the parties on application U/s 65 of Evidence Act heard. Vide instant application, plaintiff/applicant has sought permission to prove sale-deed dated 18.7.1959, by way of secondary Civil Revision No.5208 of 2011(O&M) 2 evidence. Perusal of record shows that certified copy of aforesaid sale- deed has already been placed on record, which means prove of prima facie existence of document in question. It has been further mentioned in the application that original sale-deed has been misplaced. This contention of the applicant has been supported by his duly sworn affidavit. Therefore, this court prima facie convince that document in question is not in possession of plaintiff. In these circumstances, as document is registered one and no prejudice is going to be caused to defendant, plaintiff is allowed to prove sale-deed dated 18.7.1959 by way of secondary evidence subject to proof of its misplacement and not traceable. Application disposed of accordingly. One PW Swaran Singh has been examined. On request of counsel for plaintiff, adjourned to 26.8.2011 for remaining evidence of plaintiff. Final opportunity stands extended till then subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/-.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 4 to 6 preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, no ground for permitting the plaintiff to produce secondary evidence was made out, so, the trial Court committed a mistake in allowing the application, sans merit. 7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has sought permission to prove the copy of registered sale-deed dated 18.07.1959 by way of secondary evidence, the certified copy of which is already on record. Moreover, the petitioners are not going to be prejudiced, in any manner, in this respect. 8. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in allowing the application vide impugned order dated 02.08.2011. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Civil Revision No.5208 of 2011(O&M) 3 Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5208 of 2011(O&M) 4 C.M.Nos.20897-98-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5208 of 2011 Present: Mr.Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** Applications are allowed as prayed for. August 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE