PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. SAT KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Paramjit Kaur filed the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to prove document dated 6. 10. 1893 by leading secondary evidence. This application Was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 27. 10. 1997. This order has been impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) THE main petition Under Sections 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act had been filed by Sat Kartar Singh relating to the property No. 821/iv-19, Bazar Muniarana, Amritsar. Smt. Paramjit Kaur had pleaded that the petitioner Sat Kartar Kaur had pleaded that the petitioner Sat Kartar Singh has no locus standi to file the present suit. The Bunga in dispute was acquired by the acquisition authority and was owned by Sardar Gajinder Singh, grand-father of Smt. Paramjit Kaur and was attached to Shri Darbar Sahib. Sukha Singh alongwith brother Hira were alleged to be the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and were the employees. The present application was filed on the plea that photocopy of the certified copy of the said alleged agreement was filed for seeking permission to prove the same by leading secondary evidence. It was stated that the document is more than 100 years old and was a registered document dated 6. 10. 1893. The original was stated to be not traceable inspite of best efforts. This application was contested by the non-applicant mainly on the ground that no such document was ever executed, consequently the property was acquired property of Ghanaya Singh as he had purchased it by his own funds and it was not a property owned/occupied/claimed by Sukha Singh as alleged. It was categorically stated that the document does not relate to the property in questions and the document was irrelevant for the determination of the controversy in dispute. As noticed, the application was declined for two reasons: Firstly, that loss of the document was not proved and secondly no sufficient cause has been disclosed on the basis of which permission to lead secondary evidence could be granted by the learned court. Consequently, the application was dismissed.