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
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
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
