VINOD KUMAR Vs. SATBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff has assailed the correctness of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak while dismissing an application for permission to lead secondary evidence.

(2.) Some facts are required to be noticed. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell (02.03.2015) with consequential reliefs of possession and permanent injunction. He claims that the defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 02.03.2015 which was reduced into writing and was typed by a professional document writer. As per the agreement to sell, a plot measuring 500 sq. yards was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.63,50,000/- out of which he is alleged to have paid Rs. 25,00,000/- to the defendant. The parties had agreed to get the sale deed executed and registered on 14.01.2016. The defendant filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for direction to the plaintiff to produce the alleged agreement to sell and the receipt thereof. The plaintiff filed reply to the application disclosing that the aforesaid original agreement to sell and the other documents were kept in the office of Vijay Properties but the same have been stolen and FIR No. 371 dated 12.7.2016 has already been registered. Learned trial court dismissed the application of the defendant for production of documents on 02.01.2018. The defendant thereafter filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement to sell.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an application for permission to lead secondary evidence which was opposed by the defendant. The court, as noticed earlier, dismissed the application.