High Court allowed petitioners to lead secondary evidence to prove an original agreement dated 21.5.1992 in a suit for tenant declaration, dismissing objection regarding status of original document while reserving final view on validity.
Granted permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the original agreement dated 21.5.1992.
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-
Civil Revision No.493 of 2011 (O&M).
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Date of Decision: March 15, 2011.
Civil Revision No.493 of 2011 (O&M).
Manmohan Singh and another ... Petitioners
VERSUS
Harbans Singh and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the respondents.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
The petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby their application for production of original agreement dated 21.5.1992 or in the alternative for allowing them to lead secondary evidence in a
-2-
Civil Revision No.493 of 2011 (O&M).
suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the defendants are tenants over the suit land since 1992-1993 has been dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs is primarily based on the agreement dated 21.5.1992, interests of justice demand that the petitioners should be allowed to lead secondary evidence to prove the said agreement. Ordered accordingly. Of course, it will be the prerogative of the trial Court to judge the validity of the agreement in question or otherwise at the time of final arguments.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.
March 15, 2011. ak
( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners should be allowed to lead secondary evidence of the original agreement due to loss of original.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's dismissal of the application for production or alternative secondary evidence.
Manmohan Singh and another
Harbans Singh and others
Mohinder Pal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
