IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 26.07.2010 C.R.No.4583 of 2010 Ramesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Smt. Veena Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. M.K.Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The defendants are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 18.05.2010, whereby the plaintiff has been permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove the site plan, said to be more than 100 years’ old. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove existence and loss of the site plan, therefore, she cannot be permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove the said document. Reference is made to the averments made in the application, wherein the plaintiff has asserted that it is 100 years’ old document and that the same was lost when she was taking the said site plan for getting photostat. It is contended that if the document has been lost, then how the plaintiff is in possession of the photocopy of the same. The learned trial Court has allowed the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence for the reason that the certified copy of the site plan has not been given to the plaintiff nor the information has been supplied to the C.R.No. 4583 of 2010 plaintiff under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It has been also noticed that the site plan is proved to be in existence, as the minute book of 1908 mentions some site plans. Since the copy of the site plan has not been supplied by the Municipal Council, therefore, the plaintiff was rightly permitted to prove such site plan by way of secondary evidence having proved the existence and loss of the document. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 26.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2