MOHAN LAL Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.09.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.II, Una, District Una, H.P., in CMA No.1658 of 2018, whereby an application under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short the 'Act') having been filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), seeking therein permission to lead secondary evidence, came to be allowed, petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set1 aside the impugned order dated 25.9.2018., referred hereinabove.

(2.) Having carefully perused the material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned counsel representing the defendant that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not inconformity with the provisions contained under Sec. 65 of the Act, rather this Court is of the view that impugned order is strictly in conformity with the provisions contained under Sec. 65 of the Act. In the application at hand, plaintiff has specifically averred that defendant had entered into agreements dated 1.7.1995, 30.12.1995 and 10.9.1996 and these document were duly entered in the register of Petition Writer namely, Mangat Ram at Serial No.225 dated 1.7.1995, at Serial No.382, dated 30.12.1995 and Serial No.137, dated 10.9.1996. Plaintiff also claimed before the Court below that earlier he was in possession of these documents, but since original documents have been misplaced in the house of the plaintiff at the time of shifting of articles, he is entitled to prove the same by way of leading secondary evidence in terms of the provisions contained under Sec. 65 of the Act.

(3.) Sec. 65 of the Act, deals with the situations/ circumstances under which secondary evidence relating to documents can be given to prove the existence, condition or contents of the documents. If Sec. 65 is read in its entirety, it reveals that secondary evidence can be led if original of documents intended to be produced by secondary evidence is destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. Party intending to produce secondary evidence requires to establish for the non-production of primary evidence. Unless, it is established that the original documents is lost or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party in respect of that document sought to be used, secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot be accepted.