CR-4371-2018 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4371-2018 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Mukh ar Kaur and others ...Pe oners Versus Sukhdeep Singh Advocate and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the pe oners. Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision pe on arises out of a suit for declara on ins tuted by the respondents-plain ffs. During the pendency of the suit, the plain ffs moved an applica on seeking a direc on to the defendants to produce the original agreement to sell. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 12.08.2013, no ced the stand of the defendants that the original agreement was not in their possession and, while disposing of the applica on, observed that in such eventuality the defendants would remain precluded from producing the original document in evidence. 2. Subsequently, the defendants filed an applica on seeking a direc on to the plain ffs to produce the original agreement to sell. The said applica on was allowed by the learned trial Court on 20.04.2017. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by the plain ffs in CR- 3813-2017, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-6), thereby affirming the direc on issued by the learned trial Court. 3. During the course of recording the evidence of the plain ffs, the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.28 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4371-2018 [2] defendants moved an applica on under Sec on 65 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 read with Sec on 151 CPC seeking permission to prove the agreement to sell by way of secondary evidence during the cross- examina on of the plain ffs. The learned trial Court dismissed the said applica on vide the impugned order dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P-9), which has been assailed in the present revision pe on. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the pe oners submits that despite the order of the trial Court, as affirmed by this Court, the plain ffs failed to produce the original agreement to sell. It is, therefore, contended that the defendants have become en tled to prove the said document by leading secondary evidence and no prejudice would be caused, if such permission is granted during the cross-examina on of the plain ffs. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the respondents have no objec on, if the pe oners are permi@ed to prove the agreement to sell by way of secondary evidence, subject to their sa sfying the requirements of Sec on 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it is contended that such permission cannot be u lized to permit the defendants to adduce their own evidence during the cross-examina on of the plain ffs. According to the learned counsel, the document can be proved only when the stage arrives for the defendants to lead their evidence. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds substance in the objec on raised on behalf of the respondents - plain ffs. 7. The provisions rela ng to secondary evidence merely prescribe the circumstances in which secondary evidence of a document becomes admissible. Grant of permission to lead secondary evidence neither dispenses with proof of the document in accordance with law nor does it YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.28 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4371-2018 [3] alter the se@led procedure governing the order in which evidence is to be recorded. A defendant cannot ordinarily be permi@ed to prove his own document while the plain ff is s ll leading evidence, as such a course would disturb the statutory sequence of trial and prejudice the orderly conduct of the proceedings. 8. In the present case, the plain ffs are yet to conclude their evidence. The pe oners are undoubtedly en tled to cross-examine the plain ffs on all relevant aspects concerning the agreement to sell. However, the stage for proving the agreement to sell by way of secondary evidence would arise only when the pe oners enter upon their own evidence. At that stage, it shall be open to them to sa sfy the Court regarding the founda onal facts necessary for recep on of secondary evidence and thereaDer prove the document in accordance with law. 9. The impugned order, insofar as it permits the pe oners to prove the agreement to sell by way of secondary evidence during the cross- examina on of the plain ffs, cannot be sustained. Nevertheless, the pe oners cannot be deprived of their substan ve right, if otherwise available in law, to seek permission to adduce secondary evidence at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. 10. Consequently, the present revision pe on stands disposed of by modifying the impugned order to the extent that the pe oners shall not be en tled to prove the agreement to sell by way of secondary evidence during the cross-examina on of the plain ffs. It shall, however, be open to the pe oners to move an appropriate applica on at the stage of their own evidence for leading secondary evidence of the agreement to sell. If such an applica on is filed, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same independently on its own merits, in accordance with law, without YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.28 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4371-2018 [4] being influenced by any observa on contained in the impugned order or in the present order. 11. Pending miscellaneous applica on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.28 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document