ZUBEDA HIFAZAT HUSAIN Vs. KHURSHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally in view of short issue involved.

(2.) The petitioners are the original defendant nos. 3 to 10 in the suit that was filed by the respondent no.3 herein seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 22.11.1990. The defendant nos. 3 to 10 claim interest in the suit property pursuant to a separate agreement being entered into with the original plaintiff. After the pleadings were completed the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant no.1 to produce original of the agreement dated 22.11.1990. There was no reply filed to that application nor was the original of the said agreement placed on record. On that basis the plaintiff sought permission to lead secondary evidence by filing an application below Exhibit 77. He sought to refer to a photocopy of the said agreement in question. By filing reply the defendant nos. 3 to 10 opposed the said application. It was their stand that the photocopy of the said agreement did not contain various relevant clauses and the map referred to therein did not form part of the said agreement. Hence, such permission was not liable to be granted. The trial Court by the impugned order has granted such permission. Being aggrieved the defendant nos. 3 to 10 have challenged the same in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri S.V.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the photocopy of the agreement dated 22.11.1990 was sought to be relied upon without accounting for loss of the original document, said permission could not have been granted. There were various spaces kept blank in the said document and the map which was stated to be a part of the said agreement was not annexed to that document. Hence such incomplete document could not have been permitted to be proved by granting permission to lead secondary evidence. He sought to place on record the decision in Smt. J.Yashoda Vs. Smt. K.Shobha Rani, 2007 AIR(SC) 1721 in that regard.