C.R. 885 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 885 of 2009 Date of decision:- 30.10.2009 Tarsem Lal and others petitioner vs Manohar Lal & Anr. Respondent Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate. Mr. Jai Brar, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The defendants have filed this revision petition impugning order dated 15.10.2008, by virtue of which the trial court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff- respondents directing the defendant- petitioners to produce the original sale deeds dated 9.2.1993, 12.2.1993 and two other sale deed of the same date i.e 1.9.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while allowing the application of the plaintiff- respondents, the trial court has ignored the fact that the two sale deeds, which were required to be produced by the petitioners had neither been executed by them nor they are in possession of the same. So far as the other two sale deeds dated 1.9.1987 are concerned, the original sale deeds have been produced by the petitioners in another litigation, as such, they are not in possession of the same also. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the documents, regarding which secondary evidence has been permitted to be C.R. 885 of 2009 2 produced, are registered documents, as such their execution can be proved by leading the secondary evidence. Besides this, it has been brought to my notice that the certified copies of the three sale deeds have already been produced on record as Exs. P-17, P-18 and P-19 on 19.1.2009, prior to the grant of interim stay by this court on 22.4.2009. No serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by allowing the plaintiff- respondents to produce the documents, execution of which is not actually denied. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the execution of the documents, which have been permitted to be produced by way of secondary evidence will have to be proved, in accordance with law and the dismissal of this revision petition will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners in any manner. It is also not out of place to mention here that the sale deeds have been permitted by the trial court to be placed on the record subject to the decision of this revision petition. The trial court will be at liberty to deal with the documents, in accordance with law. October 30,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE