SANTOKH SINGH Vs. SURINDER SINGH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modifying the impugned order dtd. 14/11/2018 and for setting aside the order dtd. 20/5/2022 passed by the Trial Court vide which the second application filed by the plaintiffpetitioner for leading secondary evidence has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 6/3/2017 for recovery of Rs.66,69,568.00 along with interest and damages of Rs.5.00 crores along with interest for loss and damages caused to him by the defendant-respondents with a view to cheat the family of the plaintiff-petitioner and to send defendant-respondent No.3 to Canada fraudulently who married the daughter of the plaintiff-petitioner. During the pendency of the suit an application (Annexure P-2) was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for producing secondary evidence qua the existence of documents regarding the grant of immigrant visa of Canada to defendant-respondent No.3. Vide order dtd. 14/11/2018 the said application was partly allowed holding as under :

(3.) The aforesaid order was never challenged by the plaintiffpetitioner and the same attained finality. Thereafter, a second application (Annexure P-8) for secondary evidence was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for producing secondary evidence qua the existence of documents regarding the grant of immigrant visa of Canada to defendant-respondent No.3. This second application (Annexure P-8) is a verbatim copy of the first application (Annexure P-2) and relates to the very same documents as mentioned in the first application (Annexure P-2). Vide the impugned order dtd. 20/5/2022, the second application for secondary evidence was dismissed on the ground that the earlier application was dismissed vide order dtd. 14/11/2018 and the contents were similar and that the said order dtd. 14/11/2018 was neither challenged in appeal nor in revision and the same had attained finality. Hence, holding the second application for secondary evidence not maintainable, the same was dismissed.