Tarsem Singh and Another vs Nachhattar Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed by the plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 9.3.2011 passed by the learned trial court thereby allowing application filed by defendant No. 1 for permission to lead secondary evidence of affidavits Annexures P/1 and P/2 and registration certificate of a tractor. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that loss of the original documents has not been proved and therefore, permission to lead secondary evidence thereof could not be granted. In this connection it was submitted that Sarup Singh DW2 in his affidavit of examination-in-chief has stated about loss of the original documents but he has not yet been cross-examined and therefore, from his examination-in-chief only, it cannot be said that the original documents have been lost.

The aforesaid contention is completely misconceived and devoid of merit. Trial court has not recorded even prima facie finding much less definite finding that the original documents have been lost. On the other hand, the trial court has granted permission for secondary evidence of the documents subject to proof of loss of the original documents and just other exceptions. In these circumstances, interest of the plaintiffs/petitioners has been fully protected by the trial court by the impugned order. Resultantly, there is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the 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 devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.