This revision petition challenged a trial court order allowing secondary evidence. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no ground to interfere as the trial judge exercised caution and the document did not create fresh rights.
The revision petition was dismissed; the trial judge's order allowing secondary evidence was upheld.
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.
CR NO.6329 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.6329 of 2011 Date of decision:17.10.2011
Smt.Sukhraj Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt.Mohinder Kaur
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.B.S.Sra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the opportunity to lead secondary evidence subject to the circumstances enumerated in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was allowed.
Learned counsel contends that the order passed by the learned trial Court is palpably illegal as the plaintiff has failed to prove existence of the document and loss of the same. In support of his argument, he cites Raj Rani v.Jamuna Devi, 1991(1) PLR 391, Smt.Prigya Sharma V.Smt.Dropti Sharma, 1989 Civ.CC 434, Gurdial Kaur V. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 2000 (1) PLR 156 and Smt.Shanti Devi V.Harbans Singh and another, 1990(2) P.L.R. 228.
I have perused the case file as well as the said judgments.
The document sought to be placed on record is a copy of the alleged original agreement-compromise dated 6.7.2006. The plaintiff has rendered specific explanation that the same was lost while he was on the
2
CR NO.6329 of 2011
way. The learned Civil Judge has exercised due caution and care in allowing the application and has observed that the impugned order is subject to the circumstances enumerated in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff has already placed on record photocopy of the agreement in question, which is a vital document to determine the rights of the parties. The agreement sought to be placed on record does not create fresh rights. In the circumstance, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. However, the trial Court will consider the objection of admissibility and mode of proof of document at the appropriate stage.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
17.10.2011 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's decision to allow secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the plaintiff's explanation for the loss of the original document and the submission of a photocopy warrants setting aside the impugned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Rani v. Jamuna DeviReferred¶15
Raj Rani v. Jamuna Devi, 1991(1) PLR 391
Smt. Prigya Sharma V. Smt. Dropti SharmaReferred¶15
Smt. Prigya Sharma V. Smt. Dropti Sharma, 1989 Civ.CC 434
Gurdial Kaur V. Registrar, Cooperative SocietiesReferred¶15
Gurdial Kaur V. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 2000 (1) PLR 156
Smt. Shanti Devi V. Harbans Singh and anotherReferred¶15
Smt. Shanti Devi V. Harbans Singh and another, 1990(2) P.L.R. 228
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sukhraj Kaur
Smt. Mohinder Kaur
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
