SURENDER Vs. SAMUNDRI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner challenges the order of the learned trial Court Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, dtd. 14/8/2015 (copy Annexure P-5), by which the application filed by the respondent- defendants under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been allowed. Vide the said application the defendants sought to lead, by way of secondary evidence, an agreement of sale contended by them to have been entered into by defendant No.1 with one Mahabir Prashad Jain (not a party to the lis) on 19/11/2010, that allegedly being the basis of the sale deed executed between defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 6, the suit property having been further sold by Mahabir Prashad Jain to defendants No.2 to 6 on the strength of the agreement of sale in his favour (as contended).

(2.) The application for leading secondary evidence was filed on the ground that on the date that the said agreement was to be proved in evidence, Mahabir Prashad Jain is contended to have been coming to Court with it but lost the bag containing the agreement, in respect of which loss an FIR was registered on the same date, i.e. 19/11/2014. The learned trial Court, after considering the arguments made before it on the aforesaid application, eventually held that since the FIR had been registered on the same day, the reasoning given in the application was plausible and in any case simply by placing a copy of the agreement on record by way of secondary evidence did not amount to the said agreement being actually proved, which of course would need to be proved to the satisfaction of that Court.

(3.) On the aforesaid reasoning, the application was allowed. Before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner first points to Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC which is reproduced as follows :-