Civil Revision No.2444 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2444 of 2010 Date of Decision: 2.7.2010 Jagdish Singh .....Petitioner Versus Charan Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Shri Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby defendant No.2 was permitted to prove the sale deed dated 18.5.1987 by way of secondary evidence, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of one Shiv Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that challenge in the suit is to the sale deed dated 29.6.1987 allegedly executed by his father in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of power of attorney dated 1.6.1987. Thus, it is contended that sale deed dated 18.5.1987 is even prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and therefore, the entire stand of the defendant so as to produce said sale deed by way of secondary evidence is not tenable. Civil Revision No.2444 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the property conveyed vide sale deed dated 18.5.1987 is separate property than the land purchased on 29.6.1987. It is contended that since the original sale deed dated 18.5.1987 has been lost, therefore, he has sought to prove the same by way of secondary evidence. The respondent has sought to prove a registered document i.e. the sale deed by way of secondary evidence. The authenticity of a registered document stands on a much better footing and can be proved by secondary evidence when the said document is stated to be lost. The learned trial Court has exercised proper jurisdiction in granting opportunity to the respondent to prove the said sale deed by way of a secondary evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 2.7.2010 ds