Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harnek Singh @ Nek Singh And Another vs Sukhdev Singh And Others on 29 May, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2012
Date of decision : May 29, 2012
Harnek Singh @ Nek Singh and another
....Petitioners
versus
Sukhdev Singh and others
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Plaintiffs no. 1 and 3 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 2.4.2012, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala thereby allowing application moved by defendants (respondents no. 1 to 4) for secondary evidence of agreement/memorandum of partition dated 4.12.1987.
The defendants alleged in their application that the suit property has already been partitioned and agreement/memorandum of Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2012 -2- partition dated 4.12.1987 was prepared and on its basis even mutation was entered and sanctioned. The original document was produced in mutation proceedings. The defendants summoned file of mutation from the record room but the concerned official made statement that the said record had been destroyed.
Plaintiffs resisted the application and controverted the averments made in the application. It was denied that there was any such writing regarding partition of the suit property.
Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1 allowed the application of defendants for secondary evidence. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition at the hands of plaintiffs no. 1 and
3. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that official of the Record Room has stated that summoned record of mutation has been misplaced but only the defendants are interested in misplacement of the record. It was submitted that if secondary evidence of the said writing is allowed, the plaintiffs would be deprived of getting their alleged signatures on the writing compared with their specimen/standard signatures.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2012 -3- same cannot be accepted. It has come on record that mutation was sanctioned on the basis of alleged writing dated 4.12.1987. The said writing finds mention in the mutation order. The said writing was produced in the mutation file. However, mutation file is not traceable and concerned official of the Record Room has stated that the said file is not available. Consequently, the defendants are left with no option but to lead secondary evidence of the alleged writing. Loss of the said writing has been duly proved by the defendants. Consequently, they have been rightly granted permission to lead secondary evidence of the said writing subject to all just exceptions. The onus is on the defendants to prove the alleged writing by secondary evidence also. It would be for the trial court to evaluate the secondary evidence and to find if the said writing is proved or not. Plaintiffs may take any step permissible under law to substantiate their plea. However, permission to defendants to lead secondary evidence of the writing in question cannot be declined because they have proved that the original writing has been misplaced or lost.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that defendants' have been rightly granted permission to lead secondary evidence of the said writing subject to all just exceptions. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2012 -4- accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L.N. Mittal )
May 29, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'