AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 199 wordsK. Kannan, J.—The petitioner has come by an adverse order by his own folly. According to him, one page in the original document of sale which he has, is missing and therefore secondary evidence was being given. The original document shall be filed in the manner that he has to give a justification for filing secondary evidence. There is no need for filing a petition for reception of secondary evidence. The circumstance for production of secondary evidence is a matter of evidence and not a matter of pleading. The Court is bound to receive it in the light of what has been laid down by this Court in Atma Nand (deceased) through LR vs. Ram Sarup (deceased) through his L.Rs reported in 2012 (1) PLR 440, Dr. S.P. Arora vs. Satbir Singh 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 350 and Simar Pal Singh Vs. Hakam Singh, . The impugned order is set aside. I dispense with notice to the respondents, since the respondents are not likely to be prejudiced by such a course and they will be at liberty to cross examine the party on the circumstances elicited through him for reception of secondary evidence.
The revision petition is allowed.