C.R. No. 6598 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6598 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 4, 2009 Balwinder Singh through GPA Jagdeep Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Pawan Kumar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The main grievance of counsel for the petitioner is that permission has been granted to the plaintiff- respondent to prove the agreement of sale dated November 29,, 1994 by secondary evidence despite the fact that plaintiff had not furnished an affidavit in support of the averments in the application. Counsel for the petitioner relies on State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Khemraj and others, AIR 2000 SC 1759, wherein the Apex Court had upheld the order of the trial Court and High Court dismissing the C.R. No. 6598 of 2008 [2] application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act (for short, ‘the Act’) when it was not supported by any affidavit. However, a direction was given by the Supreme Court permitting the appellant to file a fresh application in the trial Court for seeking permission under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence supported by a proper affidavit and giving full details necessary to attract the provisions of Section 65 of the Act. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. In the present case, the plaintiff- respondent has sought the production of secondary evidence regarding the agreement of sale with an attempt to bring the case within the ambit of Section 65 (a) of the Act claiming that the original appears to be in possession of the defendant- petitioner. A notice through Court had also been issued for production of the alleged agreement. No useful purpose will be served by again directing the respondent to file an affidavit in context to the requirements of Section 65 (a) of the Act. No ground is made out for interference. The revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the impugned order dated November 6, 2008 will not be considered to have impliedly established the existence of the agreement of sale dated November 29, 1994. The plaintiff- respondent will be required to establish the execution, creation, existence, relevancy and admissibility in context to the legal provisions regarding mode of proof by leading cogent evidence. August 4, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE