Civil Revision No. 3444 of 1997 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3444 of 1997 Date of Decision: July 14, 2010 Harbans Singh ......... Petitioner versus Hardial Singh (dead) through L.R. .......... Respondents 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 Amarjeet Markan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is order passed by the learned trial Court on 02.06.1997 whereby plaintiff was permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove pronote and receipt dated 25.05.1992. The learned trial Court has recorded a finding that from the entry in the register of Document Writer, the existence of the document is proved. The Court also found that the document is proved to be lost on the basis of averments made in the plaint and the application supported by affidavit. In view of the said fact, the plaintiff was permitted to lead secondary evidence of the pronote and receipt dated 25.5.1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Civil Revision No. 3444 of 1997 [2] plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead secondary evidence of a document which is required not only to be exhibited but also required to be duly stamped. It is contended that such aspect cannot be proved by way of secondary evidence and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to prove pronote and receipt by way of secondary evidence. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. At the stage of consideration whether a person can be allowed to lead secondary evidence, the conditions precedent for permission to lead secondary evidence are existence of document and its loss i.e., pronote and receipt. Such conditions are proved as apparent from the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. While leading secondary evidence, the plaintiff is required to prove not only due execution of the document but also the fact that it was duly stamped. The defendant has challenged the order without allowing the plaintiff to avail such opportunity. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 14, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE