IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4356 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 20.05.2008 Punjab Urban Planning & Develop Authority, Patiala ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate. vs. Geetinder Kaur ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.6.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Patiala, whereby application moved by the petitioner-defendant to prove the certified copy of the Conveyance Deed dated 10.2.1976 by way of secondary evidence, has been dismissed. The petitioner is a statutory authority, which is stated to have purchased a piece of land from Yadvindra Public School, Patiala vide registered Conveyance Deed dated 10.2.1976. As the original Conveyance Deed was not traceable, it moved an application to prove the certified copy thereof by leading secondary evidence. The learned trial Court, however, has dismissed the application after observing that the petitioner has failed to prove that the 'original document' is un-traceable and that sufficient C.R. No.4356 of 2006 -2- proof of the search for the original document has also not been proved. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the observations made by the learned trial Court in the impugned order though may attract if it is a private/unregistered document but not in a case of public document duly registered with the Registering Authority. Certified copy of such like documents are per-se admissible and an affidavit of a responsible officer of the petitioner-Authority to the effect that the original Conveyance Deed is not traceable could at the best be taken on record as a sufficient proof of non-availability of the original document despite search. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 3.6.2006 is set aside and the learned Civil Court is directed to decide the petitioner's application afresh after taking the requisite affidavit, referred to above, if already not on record. Dasti. May 20, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE