Civil Revision No. 735 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 735 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 11 , 2010 International Institute of Neuro Sciences and Oncology Ltd. ...... Petitioner Versus Sahabjit Singh Sandhu and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Rajive Atmaram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh permitting secondary evidence to be led of some Form 16-A certificates. The petitioner is a tenant against whom recovery suit has been filed for arrears of rent. Admittedly rent was settled at Rs. 1, 95,000/- w.e.f. 1.8.1996. The landlord-respondent has alleged that thereafter there was an yearly increase while the petitioner has denied the same. The land-lord respondent has moved application stating that after the first year of the tenancy the petitioner increased the rent and one evidence thereof was the Form 16-A supplied by the petitioner to the respondents whereby the increased tax deduction would prove the fact that the rent had been Civil Revision No. 735 of 2010(O&M) 2 increased. The respondents had further stated that the application with the original form 16-A had been submitted along with the income tax returns. It is further pleaded that the said certificates were summoned from the Income Tax Department but were not available. The stand of the petitioner was that these alleged Photostat copies were forged and fabricated documents and by the impugned order the trial Court has allowed the respondents to prove the said documents by way of leading secondary evidence. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that under Section 65-C of the Indian Evidence Act an applicant can be permitted to lead secondary evidence only if he proves: (i) the existence of the original (ii) the loss, destruction or (iii) incapacity of the applicant to produce the same and that it is only thereafter that the document can be proved by secondary evidence. In my opinion in the impugned order this is precisely what has been mentioned though it could have been better clarified. In the circumstances this revision petition is disposed of with the clarification that the permission to lead secondary evidence which has been granted to the respondents would necessary imply that the same would be read only if the respondents are able to independently prove the existence of the documents and their loss/destruction/their incapacity to produce the originals. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Court Secretary. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 11 , 2010 sunita