VINEY KUMAR Vs. C L MALHOTRAHOSIERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein (defendants before the learned Trial Court) filed an application to obtain the leave of the Court to adduce secondary evidence to prove the following documents:-

(2.) The plea was allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 9.4.2008. Although the order was in favour of defendants-respondents, he entertained an apprehension that "his main prayer in this Application which has been allowed for leading secondary evidence may not be permitted in view of the contents of the order passed". That petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench (Ranjit Singh, J.) of this Court by passing the following order:- "Though the order is in favour of the petitioner, that he is under the apprehension that his main prayer in this Application which has been allowed for leading secondary evidence may not be permitted in view of the contents of the order passed, I have perused the impugned order. It is clear that the permission has been granted to the petitioner to lead the secondary evidence after full satisfaction that the original of the documents required to be proved by way of secondary evidence are not in existence and are accounted for. The apprehension expressed by the Petitioner apparently is ill-founded. The petitioner should have right to lead the secondary evidence of the documents in accordance with law as has already been permitted by the Court.

(3.) The revision is accordingly disposed of." Thereafter, the matter came up before the learned Trial Court on 13.6.2008 on which date the following order was passed by it:-