RAM DIYA Vs. BRIJ MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal dated 11.9.2001 vide which the application of the plaintiff-respondent for leading secondary evidence has been allowed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF -respondent has pleaded that a compromise was effected between the parties which was submitted to A.S.I. Police Post, Taraori on 18.3.1995. The said Police Post has issued an attested copy of the compromise to the respondent. The respondent summoned the M.H.C., Police Post, Taraori along with the original compromise dated 18.3.1995 to prove the attested copy on the file but the MHC stated before the Court that the original compromise was not traceable. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed an application for leading secondary evidence. Notice of the application was given to the petitioner and he raised the preliminary objection that the promise had been explained neither in the plaint nor in the replication. The execution of the alleged compromise was an afterthought. The MHC of the Police Station examined by the respondent did not prove the attested copy of alleged document. On merit, it was pleaded that no compromise was effected between the parties and the alleged copy of the compromise was a fictitious, frivolous and fabricated document.

(3.) THE secondary evidence can only be allowed if the ingredients of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are fulfilled. Section 65 of the Act reads as under :-