Revision petition challenging an order allowing secondary evidence for a mortgage agreement. The court held that since the petitioner produced the original agreement, the claim for secondary evidence does not survive and set aside the impugned order.
Impugned order allowing secondary evidence set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 6486 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.3.2009
Jag Ram ... .Petitioner Versus Pritam Singh (died) through his LRs ... Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the respondent.
RAJESH BINDAL J
The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated November 26, 2007, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for proving the agreement of mortgage dated 22.9.1999 by way of secondary evidence, has been allowed by the learned Court below..
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the very beginning his stand in the written statement was that agreement of mortgage in original is in possession of the petitioner and after the mortgage agreement was signed, the petitioner had returned the amount of Rs. 1 lac taken by him from the respondent whereas the stand of the respondent/plaintiff is that though the agreement was signed but the amount was not returned back by the petitioner to the respondent.
As the petitioner was claiming to be in possession of the agreement of mortgage in original, for proving the same the learned Court below had allowed the respondent/plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. While issuing notice of motion on December 14, 2007 the petitioner was permitted to place the agreement in original before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same has been produced before the trial Court in original The existence of the agreement of mortgage is not even disputed by the respondent and that the same was initially signed by the parties. The only dispute is as to whether the amount was returned back by the petitioner to the respondent or not. The agreement in original has already been placed on record before the trial Court by the petitioner. Resultantly, the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff in the application filed for leading secondary evidence to prove the agreement of mortgage does not survive.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is set aside.
The revision petition is disposed of.
(RAJESH BINDAL) 16.3.2009 JUDGE Reema
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing secondary evidence for proving the mortgage agreement survives in light of the original agreement being placed on record.
Whether the petitioner's possession of the original mortgage agreement disentitles the respondent from leading secondary evidence.
Jag Ram
Pritam Singh (died) through his LRs
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
