PARKASH CHAND KAPOOR CHAND Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has produced the dasti notices regarding effecting of service on respondent No. 1. According to the same, respondent No. 1 has been served. However, despite service, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Sangrur, whereby defendants-respondents No. 2 to 4 have been granted permission to lead secondary evidence of an agreement to sell dated 13.6.1995.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous inasmuch the agreement dated 13.6.1995 on which defendants No. 2 and 3 have based their claim, has in all probability been prepared after the case had been filed. In fact, there is no mention of the agreement dated 13.6.1995 in the sale deeds dated 18.12.1996 and 20.5.1997 executed by Inderjit Singh (defendant No. 1) in favour of defendants No. 2 and 4 and defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively. Therefore, it is contended that when the original of the agreement to sell is not shown to exist, the question of its being misplaced or lost does not arise. The defendants-respondents in fact were liable to show as to how they procured the photocopy of the said agreement in the absence of the original being shown to have been lost or misplaced. The defendants-respondents, therefore, it is contended, cannot be allowed to lead secondary evidence in respect of an agreement of which there is no original.