Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Pal Singh vs Surinder Singh on 15 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:038815
C. R. No.1666 of 2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.127
Case No. : C. R. No.1666 of 2024
Date of Decision : March 15, 2024
Mandeep Pal Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
Surinder Singh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-9),
passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar (for brevity - Trial Court),
whereby application filed by the respondent under Section 65(a) of the
Indian Evidence Act, seeking permission to prove the rent deed dated
23.02.1996 by way of secondary evidence, has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for proper adjudication of the
present petition, are that the respondent filed an application under Section 13
of the Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short - the Act), seeking ejectment of
petitioner from the shop, in which he was tenant, on the ground of non-
payment of rent as well as personal necessity. It was averred in the
application that father of the petitioner namely Kuljinder Singh was inducted
as tenant in the shop in question on the basis of rent note dated 23.02.1996
MONIKA written by him and rent was fixed @ 1200/- per month with enhancement @
2024:PHHC:038815
5% per year. The present rate of rent was Rs.2620/- per month. It was
further averred that father of the respondent Balbir Singh transferred the suit
property to the respondent and his son as per transfer deed dated 31.01.2020.
Thus, they became owners of the suit property and filed application for
ejectment of the petitioner from the suit property. During the course of
hearing on the above said application, respondent was directed to produce all
the original documents, on which he was relying. However, he failed to
place on record original documents in spite of sufficient opportunities
granted to him to do the needful. The petitioner contested the aforesaid
ejectment application on the ground that there was no relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner or his father was
never inducted as tenant in the demised shop and the alleged rent note, if
any, was forged and fabricated. The petitioner never paid any rent either to
the respondent or his father.
3. Considering the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Trial
Court framed issues on 12.12.2022. Even thereafter, the respondent led no
evidence. Then, after a long gap, the respondent moved the application in
question for leading secondary evidence to prove rent note dated 23.02.1996,
which has been allowed by learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated
20.02.2024 (Annexure P-9).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the time of
issuing notice in the rent application, the learned Trial Court, vide order
dated 24.03.2021, directed the respondent/landlord to file all the original
documents, as relied upon by him in this case on or before the next date of
hearing, failing which he shall be barred from relying upon those documents
2024:PHHC:038815
but even then, rent note was not filed. The petitioner, on appearance, moved
an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to direct the respondent/landlord
to comply with the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court.
The landlord/respondent was directed to supply the copies of documents
within next five working days, failing which he would be debarred from
relying upon such documents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed written reply
to the rent application. After framing the issues, when the case was pending
for evidence of landlord/respondent, he moved an application for leading
secondary evidence and earlier, there was no pleading that the rent note has
been misplaced.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
and perused the case file.
6. The learned Trial Court has passed a detailed order dated
20.02.2024, wherein pleadings of both the parties and case law cited by them
have been considered. Provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act
have also been discussed. It is clear therefrom that allowing secondary
evidence would aid the Court in deciding the dispute.
7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Ashok Kumar vs. Sudesh
Rani and another - CR-8166-2018, decided on 21.07.2023, after
examining the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and the High Court Rules and Orders, has held that there is
no provision for filing an application for permission to lead secondary
evidence. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under :-
"4. In fact, after examining the provisions of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Civil
2024:PHHC:038815
Procedure, 1908 and the High Court Rules and
Orders, this Court in RSA-327-1989, titled as
"Madan Lal Vs. Shankar and others", decided
on 01.11.2018, came to a conclusion that there is
no provision for filing an application for
permission to lead secondary evidence.
5. In Civil Revision Application No.82 of
2016, decided on 10.11.2017, Bombay High Court
also 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.
6. 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 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."
2024:PHHC:038815
8. Vide order dated 25.05.2022, the learned Trial Court asked the
respondent/landlord to supply the copies of documents, as mentioned in the
application within next five working days and further ordered that
respondent would not be able to rely upon the said documents which are not
placed on file or not provided to the petitioner without leave of the Court.
9. Procedure is the hand-maid to the administration of justice and is
meant for advancement of justice and not to thwart the same. A party should
be given full opportunity to produce the evidence, on which reliance is
placed. Thus, a party cannot be denied opportunity to lead relevant evidence.
Even if no application is filed to lead secondary evidence of document, even
then the Court is duty bound to record evidence. The party leading such
evidence is to prove existence and loss of original document. If photocopy is
proved by way of secondary evidence, then Court is required to give finding
if it is copy of original and to satisfy itself that possibility of tampering with
the document is ruled out. After recording of the evidence, the Trial Court,
while finally deciding the case, would certainly evaluate such evidence as to
whether the concerned party has successfully proved the existence, validity
or genuineness of the document in question, by way of secondary evidence.
10. In the case in hand, the learned Trial Court has already held that
the landlord/respondent is allowed to lead secondary evidence, keeping in
view the averments made in the application that original rent note was in
possession of the father of the landlord and due to his old age, the said rent
note was misplaced and the same could not be traced out despite best efforts.
Although there is inaction on the part of respondent that he failed to produce
the original rent note when production of original rent note was sought by
2024:PHHC:038815
petitioner but that cannot be made a ground for rejecting the application.
The Courts are meant to do complete justice to the parties and both parties
must be given full opportunity to prove the case.
11. In view of the above discussion, no illegality or perversity is found
in the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by learned Trial Court so as
to warrant interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, this revision
petition is found to be without any merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
March 15, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
