RSA No.3004 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3004 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2010 Sardar Khan & others ......Appellant(s) Versus Deenu & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 5.7.1990 (Ex.P-6) was dismissed. The grievance raised before this Court by the appellants is that the sale deed Ex.P-6 was exhibited on record without any objection from the other side regarding the mode of proof and moreover, the aforesaid document was a public document and a certified copy of the same being per se admissible, was on record, the appellants could not have been non- suited on this ground and the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: “(i) Whether the impugned judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below are manifest, illegal, RSA No.3004 of 2009(O&M) 2 perverse and on account of mis-reading of evidence and pleadings? (ii) Whether once the sale deed has been registered and becomes a public document after registration, does the certified copy thereof is admissible in evidence? (iii) Whether while marking the sale deed dated 5.7.1990 as EX.P6 no objection has been raised by the opposite party, can the said party be permitted to raise the objection subsequently with regard to the same and its admissibility? However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that at the time of exhibition of documents objection was raised regarding the mode of proof and not only this, even if the objection is not raised, the mode of proof cannot be dispensed with. Learned counsel has further submitted that since there is no permission by the Court to prove the aforesaid document by leading secondary evidence, the same was rightly rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are without any merit. It is well settled that mere exhibition of document does not dispense with its proof. My aforesaid view is fortified by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others v. Yelamarti Satyam and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1865. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also liable to be rejected as the registered sale deed does not come within the definition as provided under Section 74 of the Indian RSA No.3004 of 2009(O&M) 3 Evidence Act. It may not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, an application has been filed by the appellants to allow them to prove the aforesaid document Ex.P-6 by leading secondary evidence. The application moved at this stage is without any merit and has certainly been filed to fill up the lacuna which cannot be permitted. The application is dismissed. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. August 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE