Civil Revision No.3750 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3750 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 20, 2009. Gurdev Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Mohinder Singh Teja & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed by the plaintiff against the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, dismissing his application for leading secondary evidence to prove an agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006. The petitioner has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006 executed between the petitioner and the defendant-respondent No.1 (Mohinder singh Teja) in respect of agricultural land measuring 15 kanal. The petitioner has further sought the alternative relief of recovery of Rs.8 lacs from the defendants on the ground that he has paid Rs.4 lacs towards Civil Revision No.3750 of 2009 -: 2 :- earnest money and is entitled to recover double thereof. The petitioner has also sought a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit land. The defendants have filed two separate written statements dated 21.9.2006 (by defendants No.1 & 2) and one in August 2006 (by defendants No.3 & 4). In both the written statements, they have taken a specific plea that the alleged agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006 is a forged and fabricated document. It may also be noticed here that earlier the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 12.5.2006 and as per the order dated 21.5.2006 passed in that suit, the original agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006, was shown to the counsel for the defendants, by the petitioner's counsel and after seeing, the original was returned to the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. Pertinently, the plea that the said agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated document has been taken by the defendants after seeing the original agreement by their counsel on 23.5.2006. The petitioner-plaintiff moved the present application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006 as, according to him, the original agreement has been lost/misplaced by him in the court complex when he came to attend the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar on 28.9.2006. A DDR to that effect is also stated to have been got lodged with the police. The respondent-defendants opposed the application as according to them the petitioner's plea that he has lost/misplaced the original document is a false and concocted story as he does not want the Civil Revision No.3750 of 2009 -: 3 :- genuineness of the original document to be tested. The trial court has dismissed the petitioner's application after observing that the explanation regarding non-availability of the original 'agreement to sell' does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel refers to the order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the civil court in the previous suit for permanent injunction filed and urged that since the original agreement to sell was available with the petitioner and shown to the counsel for the defendants in that suit on 23.5.2006, the petitioner's explanation regarding its subsequent loss on 23.9.2006 in the court complex, ought to have been accepted and it constitutes a valid ground to lead secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. If one notices the events in a sequence, it may be seen that the original 'agreement to sell' was seen by the counsel for some of the defendants on 23.5.2006 and soon thereafter, they filed their written statements in August and September 2006 with a specific plea that the alleged agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated document. Suffice it to note here that the prospective vendor, namely, defendant No.1 is a Non- Resident Indian. The petitioner-plaintiff is claimed to have lost the original agreement to sell on 23.9.2006. The application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the said agreement though does not bear any date but appears to have been filed in September and October, 2007. The petitioner waited for almost a year to raise the plea that he has lost the original agreement to sell. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents regarding fabrication or forgery of the said agreement, the learned trial court Civil Revision No.3750 of 2009 -: 4 :- is right in observing that the story putforth by the petitioner, does not inspire confidence. It is well known that unless there is a proper, bona fide and genuine explanation regarding the loss of the original document, which is undoubtedly a better piece of evidence, no permission to lead secondary evidence can be granted. It has to be kept in mind that in case the petitioner is permitted to lead secondary evidence, the defendants will be deprived of proving the alleged forgery or fabrication of the document. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. July 20, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge