SANTOKH SINGH Vs. BISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Santokh Singh, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated May 28, 1985 pertaining to 56 kanal of land which had been executed by Bishan Singh-respondent No. 1 acting on behalf of' Amar Chand respondent No. 2 as holder of a registered power of attorney. As the respondent defaulted in the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance, as already mentioned above.

(2.) IN the written statement, the stand of the defendants was that the agreement to sell had not been executed and that Amar Chand -respondent No. 2 had not executed any power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 1. Bishan Singh aforesaid, who though served did not choose to appear in Court and as such the efforts of the petitioner to prove the existence of the power of attorney were un-successful. The petitioner; thereafter, filed an application before the trial Court for permission to lead secondary evidence with respect to the power of attorney, which was in possession of Bishan Singh but this effect too, was thwarted, the Court holding that as a notice envisaged under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, had not been served on Bishan Singh, the application for secondary evidence was not maintainable.

(3.) MR. M. S. Gill, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to Sections 65, 66 and 74 of the Evidence Act, and has urged that a registered power of attorney was a public document within the meaning of Section 65 (e) and as such, there was no necessity of giving a notice under Section 66 of the Act. He has also drawn my attention to Ajit Singh v. Sajjan Singh, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 551, wherein, it has been held that a registered general power of attorney is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 (2) and as such, a certified copy is per-se admissible in evidence. In this view of the matter and following the judgment of this Court afore-mentioned, I find that it was not even necessary for the petitioner to produce secondary evidence to prove the existence of a power of attorney. The present petition is, therefore, allowed and a direction is issued to the trial Court to accept the certified copy of the registered power of attorney as evidence. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 17. 11. 1993.