SHAM LAL Vs. PIARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenged in revision here is the order denying permission to the defendant to adduce secondary evidence of the compromise said to have been executed between the parties on December 15, 1981. It was declined for the reason that the document was not relied upon and reference in this behalf was also made to the testimony of Mr. Bector, who had deposed that four copies of the compromise based on the terms contained in the writing in question had been prepared and one each was given to the parties concerned.

(2.) A reference to the pleadings would show that the document in question had indeed been relied upon and the trial Court, therefore, was not correct in observing to the contrary.

(3.) Further, after hearing the counsel for the parties, it would appear that no issue was framed by the trial Court on whether or not secondary evidence of the document be permitted. This should clearly have been done. The impugned order of the trial Court is accordingly hereby set aside and it is directed that an issue be framed in this respect and both the parties be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in respect thereof and the matter of admission of secondary evidence be decided afresh thereafter.