IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 239 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Kailash Singh .....Petitioner. Versus Managing Director & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of certain amount of money, alleging that, he had been awarded some work by the respondents and that despite his having executed that work, money due on account of execution of that work, has not been paid to him. He wanted to bring on record an award given by one Shri T.S. Thakur, retired Executive Engineer, which is supposed to be with the respondents or the record maintained in their office. Petitioner summoned the record from office of the respondents, in which the award is supposed to be available, as it is stated to have been handed over 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- to the respondents. Respondents reported that they do not have any award in their record. 3. Petitioner, then, filed an application, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, for leading secondary evidence. Trial Court has dismissed that application, saying that no notice had been given to the respondents. 4. A Single Bench of this Court in a similar matter, in which similar petition had been allowed by the trial Court, and which order of the trail Court had been challenged, by filing a petition, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, has held that when the respondents had been called upon to produce the record (alleged award), that amounted to notice for the purposes of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The particulars of the case, in which aforesaid view was taken, are, M.D. Gowthami Hydro Electric Company (P) Ltd. & another versus Kailash Singh, CMPMO No. 88 of 2008, decided on 04.07.2008. That matter was also between the same parties, who are party to this petition. 5. In view of the aforesaid judgment, present petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and the application, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (Surjit Singh) Judge 22nd July, 2010 (rajni)