GURMAIL SINGH Vs. GURTEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dtd. 24/7/2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Payal, vide which application filed by the respondent under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence was allowed.

(2.) It is a settled principle of law that prayer in terms of Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act is only to hold an inquiry regarding existence of document and its loss under some circumstances.

(3.) In Ashok Kumar Sachdeva Vs. Harish Malik, 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 311, the High Court has held that the party should be granted leave to lead secondary evidence. Whether the party ultimately succeeds in proving the document or not is a question of fact and the same depends upon evidence of the parties. The grant of leave to lead secondary evidence does not mean that the document has to be admitted in evidence or it would give definite finding of existence of any of the conditions mentioned in Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act. It only amounts to holding an inquiry regarding existence of document at one point of time and its loss under some circumstances. The existence and loss of document would be tested by the trial Court at an appropriate stage on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. Both the eventualities cannot be pre-determined without providing opportunity to the parties.