VINAY SOOD Vs. VIJAY SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4.2.2012 (Annexure P -5) whereby applications moved by respondent No. 1 to prove dissolution deed dated 30.6.2003 and balance sheet for the year 2001 -2002 by way of secondary evidence, were allowed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the applications were liable to be dismissed as there was no occasion for the execution of the dissolution deed in the absence of any partnership firm. Further, the plaintiff had failed to establish the loss of the original documents. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Mangat Ram versus Prabhu Dayal and others, 2002 3 CivCC 381', wherein it was held as under: - "A perusal of the order passed by the Civil Judge shows that primary reason for rejecting application as that defendant/petitioner failed to prove that how he arranged photo copies of the original documents. The view of the Civil Judge extracted in para above appears to be that once the documents are lost or destroyed then the defendant/petitioner must show how its photocopies have been procured. It is not a case where the documents were required to be kept in duplicate or in triplicate. Having failed to prove as to how he arranged the photocopies of the original documents, the application was dismissed. Even at the time of hearing, learned counsel was not able to explain this aspect. "

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the applications filed by the said respondents had been allowed subject to proof of loss of original documents as well as balance sheet and other just exceptions. After the passing of the impugned order, respondents No. 1 and 2 have already led the secondary evidence in order to prove the documents in question. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Ashok Kumar Sachdeva versus Harish Malik, 2007 148 PunLR 164 , wherein it was held as under: -