RAN SINGH Vs. BALBIR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani, by which an application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by which he intends to prove the photostat copies of the rent receipts, has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has not properly appreciated the fact that the original receipts have been lost by him and accordingly a Daily Diary Report was got entered on 25.02.2011. He further asserted that when the order dated 18.11.2010 was passed by the Rent Controller, the applicant-petitioner had produced the photostat copies of the receipts and at that time, he had the original receipts with him, it is subsequent that the said receipts were lost when the case was in progress and the D.D.R. entry was got recorded. He, thus, contends that the dismissal of the application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, cannot sustain. He further contends that the secondary evidence has to be corroborated by other evidence which ultimately has to be taken into consideration by the Court to allow the same to be accepted or not.

(3.) This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, on consideration, cannot be accepted as it is apparent that except for the bald version of the petitioner, there is no other evidence on record except for the D.D.R. entry dated 25.02.2011. At the stage when the assessment of rent was taking place before the Rent Controller, the applicant-petitioner placed on record the photostat copies of the receipts and not the original receipts before the Court. No reason as to why the original receipts were not produced at that stage has come forth. It appears that the loss of documents has been taken as a plea at a subsequent stage and, therefore, a D.D.R. entry dated 25.02.2011 has been got recorded. The observations of the Court below that the photocopies of the original receipts can only be tendered by way of secondary evidence after it is proved on record that the photostat copies have been compared with the original are correct as nothing has come on record which would indicate so. There is no such averment made in the application. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the law, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in case titled as Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani Civil Appeal No.2060 of 2000, decided on 19.04.2007 .