CR No.7521/2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7521/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 06.12.2011. Ajmer Singh ....................Petitioner v. Labh Singh .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Jasbir Rattan,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant/petitioner in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed the order dated 20.10.2011 (P1) whereby his application for permission to lead secondary evidence has been declined by the learned trial Court. Briefly noticed the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that respondent/plaintiff Labh Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant petitioner alleging himself to be owner in possession of the suit property measuring 2 bighas 8 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.2094. Upon notice petitioner/defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the respondent/plaintiff inter alia on the ground that the latter was a tress CR No.7521/2011(O&M) 2 passer and hence not entitled to discretionary relief of permanent injunction. On merits it was stated that petitioner/defendant had purchased the suit property along with other property from Dalip Singh and Gajjan Singh vide sale deed dated 08.08.1962 and, therefore, Gajjan Singh @ Gajju or his daughter has no right to sell the same. It was also stated that the alleged temporary constructions on the suit land have been raised about ¾ months back in night time in connivance with local police. It was denied that the respondent/plaintiff was residing with his wife and children in the suit property as owner. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner/defendant filed an application for permission to lead secondary evidence. In the said application it was alleged that Kishori Lal son of Udhami Mal executed a registered sale deed no.964 dated 12.06.1962 in favour of Bachan Singh son of Attar Singh father of the defendant, which has been misplaced and not traceable. Alleging the said sale deed to be a material document, permission was sought to lead secondary evidence to prove the said sale deed. The said application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent by filing reply stating that the application was not maintainable and that defendant had not placed on record certified copy of the sale deed in question along with written statement. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that trial CR No.7521/2011(O&M) 3 Court has erred in passing the impugned order as the sale deed in question is a material document to arrive at just decision of the case. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A perusal of the written statement (P-6) reveals that the petitioner/defendant had claimed the ownership of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 08.08.1962 executed in his favour by Dalip Singh & Gajjan Singh @ Gajju etc. In the entire written statement there is no mention of any registered sale deed no.964 dated 12.06.1962, which is now being sought to be brought on record by way of secondary evidence. The learned trial Court while dismissing the application for leading secondary evidence has categorically noticed that sale deed in question has not been relied upon by either of the parties. It has further been noticed that defendant/petitioner has not explained as to under what circumstances and to prove which plea he wants to lead secondary evidence. In view of the above finding no merit in the present revision petition, same is hereby dismissed. 06.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge