The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition. It held there was no legal infirmity in permitting secondary evidence regarding a rent note, as the original was in the possession of a deceased defendant, satisfying Section 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The petition was dismissed.
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.
1
CR No. 1501 of 2009 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1501 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 16-09-2010
Mohd. Nasim
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Shaukat Ali Khan and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J
There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same as secondary evidence has been permitted to be adduced by the Court while accepting the prayer of the respondent.
The document in question is a rent note. The respondent right from the beginning has been submitting before the Court that the said rent note is in possession of defendant no.1 who was also arrayed as party in the suit. The said defendant no.1 has since expired on 23.6.2008. Prior to that respondent had moved an application in March, 2008 seeking permission of Court to summon defendant no.1 and the said document. But before the said application could be adjudicated upon, the said person died as a result of which application was withdrawn and an application for secondary evidence was filed. With reference to Section 65 of the Indian
CR No. 1501 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Evidence Act it becomes adequately established that the document in question was not within the power of the respondent to produce, it being with the said defendant who had expired. Therefore, the Court was right in appreciating that parameters of the Section 65 and 66 stands satisfied so as to enable the respondent to produce secondary evidence.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
September 16, 2010 rekha
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether secondary evidence was correctly permitted despite the primary document being in possession of a deceased party.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Nasim
Shaukat Ali Khan
another
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
