Jarnail Singh vs Chajja Singh

Amar Dutt, J.—This revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 14.1.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, dismissing an application u/s 65 of the Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence.

According to the petitioner, an agreement had been entered into between the parties on 16.1.1992 regarding the dispute that arose between them with regard to the Gali (street). The same is stated to be executed in Police Station, Ladwa, and the original was retained by the police. It was also stated that the record from the Police Station had been summoned along with the agreement, but the record keeper had made a statement that the agreement including the record for the year 1992 had already been destroyed and, therefore, it was prayed that the petitioner should be allowed to prove the photocopy of the same by leading secondary evidence. This application was contested by the respondent on various grounds. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), after hearing arguments, rejected the same; hence the revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents relied upon by them during the course of arguments is support of their rival contentions.

In the present case while the petitioner is asserting that an agreement was executed between the parties on 16.1.1992 and the original was retained by the SHO Police Station Ladwa, the respondents have denied the same. It is, however, not disputed before me that one Satwmder from Police Station Ladwa was examined as PW4 and he had stated that the original agreement was not with the Police Station and the rapat roznamcha of the year 1992 had been destroyed. He had also asserted that no such agreement would be there in the Police Station. t Seen in the light of these circumstances, the requirement of Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, which is reproduced as under:-

"65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may he given.-Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:

a) xxx xxx xxx b) xxx xxx xxx c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reasons not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time:"

cannot be said to have been proved because there is neither any proof of the execution of the document nor is the identity of the person in whose custody it was left can be fixed as the name of the SHO is not disclosed nor has anyone appeared in Court to prove, that the same has actually been destroyed."

A perusal of the Agreement, Annexure P3, does not give any indication about this having been executed in the Police Station, Ladwa, in the presence of its SHO.

In the circumstances, I am of the view that the trial court did not commit any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and this order is hereby affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.