Bhagwat Prashad and Anr. Vs Amar Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhagwat Prashad and Anr. Vs Amar Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed and the impugned order set aside; the Tribunal directed to decide the aspect of admissibility of the secondary evidence while deciding the main claim petition; petitioners not to be denied an opportunity to lead the relevant evidence, with the Tribunal to evaluate whether the existence, validity and genuineness of the affidavit have been proved by secondary evidence; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioners' prayer to be permitted to prove the affidavit of sale by way of secondary evidence is sustainable.

Court's answer

The order under challenge (the Trial Court's dismissal of the prayer to prove the affidavit of sale by secondary evidence) is not sustainable; accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal is directed to decide the aspect of admissibility of the secondary evidence while deciding the main claim petition.

Key takeaways

The petitioners shall not be denied an opportunity to lead the relevant evidence.obiter¶¶22
While finally deciding the case, the Tribunal shall be entitled to evaluate such evidence and decide whether the petitioners have successfully proved the existence, validity and genuineness of the affidavit by way of secondary evidence.obiter¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh), Civil Revision No. 990 of 2020 (O&M), decided 14.05.2025 (Anil Kshetarpal, J.). The petitioners' prayer to be permitted to prove an affidavit of sale by way of secondary evidence having been dismissed by the Trial Court, they challenged the dismissal through this revision petition. Adverting to this Court's earlier decision in Ashok Kumar v. Sudesh Rani and Another (Civil Revision No. 8166 of 2018, decided 21.07.2023) — whose quoted deliberations drew on Madan Lal v. Shankar (RSA-327-1989), a Bombay High Court decision (Civil Revision Application No. 82 of 2016) and the Supreme Court's observations in Dhanpat v. Sheoram (2020 SCC OnLine SC 606) to the effect that applications for permission to lead secondary evidence are filed under misconception and that no provision exists for filing them — the present Court held the impugned order unsustainable. The revision petition was allowed and the impugned order set aside; the Tribunal was directed to decide the admissibility of the secondary evidence while deciding the main claim petition, the petitioners were assured they shall not be denied an opportunity to lead the relevant evidence, and the Tribunal is to evaluate whether the petitioners have proved the existence, validity and genuineness of the affidavit by way of secondary evidence. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

120

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 990 of 2020 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 14.05.2025

Bhagwat Prashad and Another

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Amar Singh and Others

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present: Mr. B.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The prayer of the petitioners to permit them to prove the

affidavit of sale by way of secondary evidence has been dismissed by the Trial Court which is challenged in the present revision petition.

In Ashok Kumar v. Sudesh Rani and Another (Civil Revision No. 8166 of 2018, decided on 21.07.2023) , this Court, after examining the provisions, has held as under:-

“4. In fact, after examining the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the High Court Rules and Orders, this Court in RSA-327-1989, titled as “Madan Lal Vs. Shankar and others”, decided on 01.11.2018, came to a conclusion that there is no provision for filing an application for permission to lead secondary evidence.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.05.14 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 990 of 2020 (O&M) 2

5. In Civil Revision Application No.82 of 2016, decided on 10.11.2017, Bombay High Court also held that such applications are being filed under misconception, which has now attained provisions of an epidemic. Even the Supreme Court in Dhanpat Vs. Sheoram (Deceased) through LRs and others, 2020 SCC online SC 606 made observations in this regard.”

Keeping in view the aforesaid deliberations, this Court is of the opinion that the order under challenge is not sustainable. Hence, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the aspect of admissibility of the secondary evidence while deciding the main claim petition.

Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not be denied an opportunity to lead the relevant evidence. The Tribunal, while finally deciding the case, shall be entitled to evaluate such evidence and decide as to “whether the petitioners have successfully proved the existence, validity and genuineness of the affidavit by way of secondary evidence?”

The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge

May 14, 2025 “DK”

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.05.14 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document