BHAGWAN SARUP Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner against the order passed by the trial Court whereby application filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for leading secondary evidence was allowed.

(2.) A suit is pending between the parties for specific performance of the contract with consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was moved by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for leading secondary evidence stating that the original agreement to sell dated 4.11.1989 as well as original applications dated 26.6.1990 and 5.7.1990 moved by them for getting their presence marked before the Sub-Registrar have been misplaced and that photo-stat copies of the same are in possession of the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was further stated that the plaintiffs tried to search the said original documents, but the same could not be traced.

(3.) This application was opposed by the defendant-petitioner on the ground that the allegation of misplacement of original documents is wrong and an afterthought. The plaintiffs availed several opportunities to lead their evidence, but thereafter the present application was moved on wrong and false facts. It was further stated that the application is not maintainable' as it is not covered under the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').