ATTAR SINGH Vs. BHUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of order dated 16.3.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, in CMP No. 41/6 of 2012 in Civil Suit No. 124/1 of 2008, whereby the prayer of the petitioners herein, who are plaintiffs before the learned trial court, for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been declined.

(2.) Bereft of details facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that in a suit for grant of a decree of declaration to the effect that the entry of tenancy in the revenue record in favour of the respondents (defendants) is illegal, false and fraudulent etc. and is inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers, with consequential relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering, trespassing, in any manner whatsoever, themselves or through their agents, servants and legal representatives with the suit land, a prayer for leading secondary evidence for proving documents, viz. order dated 7.12.1979, passed by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Renuka Ji, District Sirmaur, H.P., in case file no. 171/79, titled 'Chandanu alias Chandan Singh and others Vs. Jangli Ram and others', decided on 7.12.1979, statement of Shri Bhoop Singh (defendant No.1), dated 7.12.1979 and application/compromise deed dated 26.11.1979 in those proceedings, was made on the ground that the concerned official from the court of A.C. 1st Grade, Renuka Ji, District Sirmaur, H.P., who was called to prove these documents from the original case file, has stated that the said file has since been destroyed in accordance with Rules.

(3.) The prayer for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence was opposed by the defendants on the grounds that on the one hand they were not supplied copies of the documents sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence and on the other the plaintiffs were required to strictly prove the allegations contained in paras 3 to 5 of the application in accordance with law.