Manjit Singh vs Gurdeep Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant No. 1-Manjit Singh, by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has impugned

order dated 10.07.2013 Annexure P-7 passed by the trial Court thereby allowing application Annexure P-4 filed by respondents No. 1 and

2/plaintiffs for secondary evidence of agreements dated 09.01.2009 and 25.03.2009 subject to proof of existence and loss thereof. Plaintiffs have

alleged in plaint Annexure P-1 that defendants No. 2 to 5 (proforma respondents No. 3 to 6) agreed to sell the suit land to defendant No. 1-

petitioner vide agreement dated 09.01.2009 and thereafter defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs vide agreement dated

25.03.2009. Defendant No. 1 received Rs. 50,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 also supplied photostat copy of

agreement dated 09.01.2009 to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of agreement dated 25.03.2009. On 29.05.2009, defendant No. 1 in

connivance with other defendants took the original agreement dated 25.03.2009 from the plaintiffs on the pretext of getting signatures of defendant

No. 3 thereon and fled away with the original agreement. Thereupon plaintiffs lodged FIR on 30.05.2009 against the defendants. Reiterating the

same version in the application Annexure P-4, plaintiffs sought permission to lead secondary evidence of both the aforesaid agreements.

Defendant No. 1, by filing reply Annexure P-5, contested the application and denied the averments made therein. Existence and execution of

both the agreements was denied. Similar reply Annexure P-6 was filed by defendants No. 2 to 4 and also separate reply by defendant No. 5.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-7 has allowed application Annexure P-4 filed by plaintiffs and they have been permitted to

lead secondary evidence of both the agreements subject to proof of existence and loss thereof. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 1 has filed this

revision petition to assail the aforesaid order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that alleged agreements were never executed and therefore, permission to lead secondary evidence thereof

could not be granted. The contention cannot be accepted because permission for secondary evidence of the agreements has been granted subject

to proof of existence and loss of the agreements. It may be added that the plaintiffs had also lodged FIR dated 30.05.2009 narrating the same

facts about the agreements almost three years before the filing of the suit. Defendant No. 1-petitioner as well as defendant No. 3 are facing trial in

the said case as submitted by counsel for the petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, permission to lead secondary evidence of the agreements in question has been rightly granted by the trial Court,

subject to proof of existence and loss thereof. There is, therefore, no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned

order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Civil miscellaneous No. 18424-CII of 2013 for interim

stay is disposed of as infructuous.