OM PARKASH Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition has been directed against orders dated 15.10.2012 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, dismissing two applications Annexures P-4 dated 21.03.2011 and P-5 dated 02.05.2011 to grant permission for producing certified copies of the sale deeds by way of secondary evidence to prove identity of the suit property.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant with a plea that he purchased the suit property having four plots vide sale deed No.1507 dated 09.08.1974 and he is owner in possession of the suit property since then. After purchase of plots, the petitioner constructed a common boundary wall of all the plots and a shed on the south-west corner of the plot and also got electric connection installed there. The respondent threatened to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and illegally. In the written statement, the defendant/respondent denied possession of plaintiff over the suit property and also disputed identification of the property in question. The petitioner, to establish identity of property summoned Smt. Surjit Kaur wife of Balbir Singh, owner of adjoining property with original sale deed bearing Vasika No.4647 dated 12.11.1981 as Surjit Kaur's plot falls in Khasra No.4327 and a part of plot of the plaintiff also falls in Khasra No.4327. Smt. Surjit Kaur appeared as PW-5 on 16.12.2010 and stated on oath that she did not want to produce the sale deed in her favour. Sanjay Mittal, owner of another plot made a statement that original sale deed bearing No.3543 dated 16.10.1985 is in custody of Canera Bank, Panipat. Mohinder Kumar PW-9 failed to produce the sale deed No.5006 dated 03.12.1981 because he had already sold his plot in favour of Rajinder Kumar Sapra. It is further argued that the petitioner moved two applications (Annexures P-4 and P-5) for permitting to prove sale deeds No.4647 dated 12.11.1981 in favour of Surjit Kaur, sale deeds bearing Nos.5006 dated 03.12.1981, 3543 dated 16.10.1985, 3194 dated 12.08.1981 by way of secondary evidence but the same have been wrongly and illegally rejected by the trial Court vide orders impugned. It is further argued that a serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case he is not permitted to prove the aforesaid sale deeds by way of secondary evidence, necessary for just decision of the case.

(3.) Counsel for the contesting respondents has supported the impugned orders by contending that copies of the sale deeds sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence are not appended with the application in order to prove that the sale deeds in question are relevant and material for adjudication of the matter in dispute. It is further argued that the sale deed in favour of Smt. Surjit Kaur PW-5 pertains to Khasra No.4327 but it is not plea of the petitioner that property purchased by him falls in any khasra number much less the khasra number from which property was purchased by Smt. Surjit Kaur. It is further argued that the petitioner never complied with the provisions of Sec. 66 of the Evidence Act before filing applications for permission to lead secondary evidence. It has been argued that the petitioner has challenged two separate orders by way of a joint petition, not permissible in law.