Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhu Dayal vs Reena Devi And Anr on 7 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063390
CR No.5619 of 2017 (O&M) -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5619 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Order:07.05.2024
Prabhu Dayal
.Petitioner
Versus
Reena Devi and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. Called twice.
2. The learned counsel representing the respondents did not enter appearance. On 02.09.2022, also the learned counsel representing the respondents was not present.
3. In this revision petition, the petitioner assails the correctness of the interlocutory order passed by the trial court on 19.07.2017, while dismissing his application for permission to prove the panchayati faisla dated 12.09.2012. The Court has dismissed the application on the ground that proper explanation of absence of document has not come forward and there is no averment in the plaint that the panchayati faisla was reduced into writing. The plaintiff has also not disclosed the fact that he is not in possession of the panchayati faisla.
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner while relying upon the judgment passed in Madan Lal Vs. Shankar and others (RSA-327- 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:49:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063390 CR No.5619 of 2017 (O&M) -
1989, decided on 01.11.2018), submits that an application for permission to lead secondary evidence was filed on account of wrong advice and there is no provision for seeking prior permission to lead secondary evidence.
5. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioner.
6. In fact, a significantly large number of cases have been decided after examining the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the High Court Rules and Orders. It has been found that there is no provision for filing an application for permission to lead secondary evidence.
7. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision No.82 of 2016, decided on 10.11.2017, wherein it has been held that such applications are being filed under misconception which has now attained provisions of an epidemic. Even the Supreme Court in Dhanpat Vs. Sheoram (Deceased) through LRs and others, 2020 SCC online SC 606 made observations in this regard.
8. In Civil Revision No.2575 of 2020, titled as "Vinod Kumar Vs. Satbir Singh", decided on 03.03.2021, this Court has held as under:-
"Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the order under challenge cannot be sustained. This order is declared to be inoperative. The Civil Court is directed to decide the aspect of admissibility of the secondary evidence while deciding the suit. Needless to observe that the plaintiff shall not be denied an opportunity to lead the relevant evidence. The 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:49:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063390 CR No.5619 of 2017 (O&M) -
trial court while finally deciding the case will be entitled to evaluate such evidence and decide whether the plaintiff has successfully proved the existence, validity and genuineness of the agreement to sell and the receipt thereof by way of secondary evidence."
9. With these observations, the present petition is allowed.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
May 07, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:49:17 :::