CHUNNI LAL Vs. SUDESH RANI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit of the plaintiff- petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated August 12, 1997 is pending before the trial Court. The defendant- respondents had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before September 30, 1997. On account of sale deed having not been executed on September 30, 1997, the parties appeared to have met on November 5, 1997 in presence of Panchayat and executed an agreement confirming the previous agreement of sale dated August 12, 1997, further agreeing that sale deed shall be executed on or before January 31, 1998 on payment of agreed amount besides an additional sum of Rs. 24000/- as interest. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permission to produce the secondary evidence regarding agreement dated November 5, 1997 claiming that the original agreement had been misplaced by him on the previous date of hearing as the bag containing the original agreement was dropped somewhere from his motorcycle which could not be traced out despite best efforts. The photocopy of the said document has already placed on record alongwith the suit from the very beginning. The application was contested alleging that the allegations in the application were vague and that their had not been any such agreement.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated February 10, 2011 on the ground that the cross-examination of PW1 has been completed finally on October 15, 2010 whereas the application has been filed when the case is fixed for last opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his evidence.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the application for producing secondary evidence has been filed immediately after the loss of the document and that the petitioner will not get any benefit by lingering on his own suit.