SAT NARAIN BANSAL Vs. ROSY BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid five Civil Revisions, detailed at the footnote of the instant judgment, have arisen out of separate orders of even date i.e. 12.2.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)Gurgaon in five different suits for specific performance of agreement to sell between the present petitioner/ defendant (vendor) and respondents/plaintiffs who are different builders, whereby secondary evidence has been permitted to be adduced, and hence disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Respondents/plaintiffs in all the different suits have admittedly made payment of almost 80% of sale consideration for five different properties to the petitioner/defendant (vendor) and are alleged to have made the balance payment of sale consideration through different receipts prior to the target dates of execution of sale deeds to enable the defendant/vendor to clear the outstanding dues and obtain

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant(vendor) has argued that the secondary evidence of photocopies of the said alleged receipts, which have never seen the light of the day, could not be permitted to be proved by leading secondary evidence. In support reliance has been placed upon M/s Parkash Chand Kapoor Chand v Inderjit Singh and others, 2006 3 RCR(Civ) 700; Mangat Ram v Prabhu Dayal and others, 2002 4 RCR(Civ) 706; Karnail Singh v M/s Kalra Brothers,Sirsa, 2009 2 RCR(Civ) 380; and Murlidhar Yadav and othes v Smt.Dipti Singh and others, 2006 4 RCR(Civ) 701. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents/ plaintiffs has argued that there is no absolute rule that a photostat copy of a document is not admissible as secondary evidence, however, the same would be subject to proof of its existence and depicting that it is a correct copy of the original document prepared by a mechanical process, as per provisions of Section 63 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. In support cites decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CR No.4913 of 2008, decided on 23.8.2013 titled as Prem Lata v Dwarka Parsad and others. He further submits that another learned Single Judge considering the entire case law has culled out the various principles vide decision dated 20.11.2013 rendered in CR 2319/2012 titled Sheeshandevi and another v Ram Mehar and others. He thus contends that the photocopy of a document can be allowed to be led in secondary evidence subject to the conditions laid down therein.