GANESH S/O KHARAGJEET Vs. BASANTI MAHOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 28/11/2011, whereby the application preferred by the plaintiff under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, "1872 Act") is allowed by the Court below. The plaintiff filed the said application Annexure-P/4 on the ground that the original sale certificate was in his possession, which was brought to the Court in July, 2008, however, the said sale certificate was misplaced outside the Court premises and was not traceable till filing of the said application. The photocopy of the said sale certificate is produced in case No. 83/2008. Apart from this, it is stated in the said application that a case No. 83/2008 (Ram Dayal Vs. Noor Mohammed) was pending before the trial Court. In the said application also a photocopy of sale certificate was filed and, therefore, the photocopy of sale certificate be taken on record.

(2.) THE Court below in the impugned order gave a finding that the defendant admitted that the original sale certificate is misplaced/not traceable. On the basis of this finding, the Court below held that as per Section 65(a) of the Act, the secondary evidence is permissible, when original document is misplaced by other side.

(3.) I have heard the parties and perused the record. In my considered opinion, the secondary evidence is defined in Section 63 of the Act, which reads as under:-