Paramjit Kaur vs Sat Kartar Singh and Another

Swantanter Kumar, J.—Smt. Paramjit Kaur filed the application u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to prove document dated 6.10.1893 by leading secondary evidence. This application Was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 27.10.1997. This order has been impugned in the present revision petition.

The main petition Under Sections 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act had been filed by Sat Kartar Singh relating to the property No. 821/IV-19, Bazar Muniarana, Amritsar. Smt. Paramjit Kaur had pleaded that the petitioner Sat Kartar Kaur had pleaded that the petitioner Sat Kartar Singh has no locus standi to file the present suit. The Bunga in dispute was acquired by the acquisition authority and was owned by Sardar Gajinder Singh, grand-father of Smt. Paramjit Kaur and was attached to Shri Darbar Sahib. Sukha Singh alongwith brother Hira were alleged to be the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and were the employees. The present application was filed on the plea that photocopy of the certified copy of the said alleged agreement was filed for seeking permission to prove the same by leading secondary evidence. It was stated that the document is more than 100 years old and was a registered document dated 6.10.1893. The original was stated to be not traceable inspite of best efforts. This application was contested by the non-applicant mainly on the ground that no such document was ever executed, consequently the property was acquired property of Ghanaya Singh as he had purchased it by his own funds and it was not a property owned/occupied/claimed by Sukha Singh as alleged. It was categorically stated that the document does not relate to the property in questions and the document was irrelevant for the determination of the controversy in dispute. As noticed, the application was declined for two reasons: Firstly, that loss of the document was not proved and secondly no sufficient cause has been disclosed on the basis of which permission to lead secondary evidence could be granted by the learned court. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Even before this Court the main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the gift deed dated 6.10.1993 is photocopy of the certified copy annexed to the application and original not being traceable; the document should should have been permitted to be produced and secondary evidence be allowed to prove the same as the document was more than 100 years old. Relying upon the provisions of Sections 65 and 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned counsel contended that the document would be per se admissible. The learned counsel relied upon AIR 1935 PCP 132 and 1991 CCC 794. There are certain apparent lacunas in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner. The document is admittedly dated 6.10.1893 while the sale in favour of Kartar Singh who subsequently created interest in favour of the plaintiff vide registered gift deed exhibit AW 8/1 dated 27th February, 1933. In other words the alleged family arrangement could not have covered the property in dispute at least prima facie. Thus this by itself indicates that the relevancy of this document to resolve the controversy between the parties is not free from doubts. Consequently, the document sought to be placed on record is the photo copy of the certified copy of the document. For the reasons best known to the applicant even the certified copy of the document has not been placed on record and no explanation for non-production thereof has been stated on record. The certified copy of a document in given circumstances may be per se admissible and the applicant may be entitled to lead secondary evidence, while this may not he equally true in the case of a copy of a certified copy of the same document. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy as to what is the relevancy of this document to the controversy in issue if the aforestated dates are true and correct. I find no error in the reasoning given by the learned trial court that applicant has not been able to prove the loss of the document. It is a settled principle of law that at least prima facie an applicant must establish the loss of the document, before it can seek benefit of leading secondary evidence u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The photocopy of the document could be made out only if the certified copy of the document is with the applicant. It is reflected that the certified copy itself was obtained on 9.12.1993 much after the filing of the present petition. Why certified copy could not be placed on record is the question which certainly cast shadow of doubt in the entire bona fide of the present application. The loss of document and its relevancy would certainly be some of the consideration which has to be taken into account by the Court concerned at the time of considering the application for secondary evidence. The fact that the document was executed and that there was loss of document should be pleaded and the court ought to be specified on both these essential ingredients for consideration of such an application. All these ingredients are missing in the present case and furthermore the application lacks bona fide. This fact ought to be in the knowledge of the applicant who has been contesting the case for the last number of years. No justification has been rendered as to the laches and why this application was filed after such a long time. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, I find no merit in this revision. Consequently, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.