IN THE HI 133 Buta Singh Ram Pal CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, of India is file dated 11.11.2 Division), Ku respondent/pl two agreeme Agreement to 2. P-1), are that No.1227/2017 petitioner/def pursuance to between the marla.The said Kaur. At the t E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Vs. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PTA, J. Present petition under Art filed by the defendant for setting 11.2024 (Annexure P6) passed by th Kurukshetra, vide which the t/plaintiff seeking permission to l ments to sell viz. Agreement to t to Sell dated 22.08.2016, was allow Brief facts of the case as se hat on 01.11.2017 the respondent/ 017for recovery of Rs.8 /defendant with regard to the paym to the aforesaid Agreement to S the parties in respect of suit la said land was bought by the plain he time of execution of Agreemen p. 1 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-119-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate r Article 227 of the Constitution tting aside the impugned order y the learned Civil Judge (Senior he application filed by the to lead secondary evidence of to Sell dated 26.02.2016 and allowed. as set out in the plaint (Annexure ent/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit Rs.84,70,000/- from the ayments made by the plaintiff in Sell dated 26.2.2016executed t land measuring 55 kanal 12 plaintiff along with one Paramjit ent to Sale dated 26.2.2016, a 6 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document sum of ₹20 la Paramjit Kaur 22.8.2016, th defendant. Sa well. In ackno writing/ Rece attested by th register at Ser 24.8.2016, the asked her to Paramjit Kaur the defendant the plaintiff 22.08.2016 to mentioned th ₹70,00,000 as alleged that agreements a plaintiff. 3. written statem that the said a background t 0 lakhs was handed over by the pla aur had contributed towards the s , the plaintiff had paid another t. Said Paramjit Kaur had contribut knowledgement of the payment, th eceipt dated 22.8.2016 itself, whi y the Notary Public Kurukshetra, w Serial no. 1934 dated 22.8.2016. It , the defendant had gone to the hou r to handover the original agree aur had handed over the original ag dant.It was further mentioned in th tiff had handed over the origina 6 to the defendant as he had dema d that the defendant had adm 0 as part of the sale consideratio at however, the petitioner had re ts and undertook to return the am Upon notice, the defenda atement (Annexure P2) contesting aid agreements to sell had been han d that the plaintiff filed the pre p. 2 e plaintiff to the defendant. Said he said payment. Said he said payment. Thereafter on her sum of ₹50 lakhs to the ibuted towards this payment as t, the defendant had executed a which was duly witnessed and ra, who entered the same in his It was further pleaded that on house of Paramjit Kaur and had greement to them.Accordingly, al agreement dated 26.2.2016 to in the plaint that on 02.10.2016, ginal agreement receipt dated emanded the same. It is further admitted receiving a sum of ration from the plaintiff.It was d rescinded from the aforesaid e amount of Rs.70 lakh to the endant had appeared and filed ing the suit and denying therein handed over to him. It is in this present application dated ‘Nil’ 6 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Annexure P4) abovesaid agr dated 22.8.20 defendant file application. 4. that in the re defendant th writing/receip plaintiff. In hi plaintiff had p no criminal c regarding the absence of an agreement, ca mentioned th against the pla the plaintiff ha P7). 5. thatin passing appreciate tha 26.02.2016 did P4) for permission to lead seconda agreement to sell date 26.2.201 8.2016, which has been allowed vid t filed reply dated 11.3.2022 (A Learned counsel for the p reply (Annexure P5), it has been that the Agreement to Sell ceipt dated 22.08.2016 were ever n his reply, the defendant has also ad pleaded in his application that t al complaint in this regard had the loss of agreement dated 26.2.20 f any police complaint, the allegati cannot be believed and taken in d that a criminal complaint had b e plaintiff under Sections 420, 467, iff has been summoned vide order Learned counsel for the ssing the impugned order, the le that case of the plaintiff with resp 6 did not fall under Section 65(a) o p. 3 ndary evidence in respect of the .2016, and the writing/Receipt d vide the impugned order. The (Annexure P-5), to the said e petitioner/defendant submits een categorically denied by the Sell dated 26.2.2016 or the ver handed over to him by the also objected that although the hat the agreement was lost, but had been made to the police .2.2016. It was stated that in the gation of the plaintiff of loss of n into consideration. It was also d been filed by the defendant 467, 468 and 120-B IPC in which der dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure the defendant further submits e learned trial Court failed to respect to the Agreement dated (a) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 6 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document as he failed to possession or p to be proved, process of the 6. to lead secon the same are police compla contended tha lead secondar relies upon jud Vs. Anguri” 2 been held as 7. 8. perused the ca d to prove that “the original is sho or power of the person against wh ved, or of any person out of reach the Court, or of any person legally b Learned counsel reiterates condary evidence in respect of the are stated to have been misplaced plaint has been lodged by the p that in such a situation, he could ndary evidence. In support of this n judgment of the Rajasthan High Co ri” 2022(1) Civil Court Cases 602 as under: - “Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.65, 66 Photocopy of document - Pre-con of Evidence Act not satisfied by admission was made by petitio document nor any FIR or any doc has been misplaced - Mere ba would not be sufficient for accep document as a secondary piece rightly rejected.” No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. Page 4 of 6 s shown or appears to be in the st whom the document is sought reach of, or not subject to, the lly bound to produce it.”. ates that the plaintiff has sought f the Agreements in question as ced by him. However, no FIR or he plaintiff in this regard. It is uld not have been permitted to his contention, learned counsel h Court in “Ram Singh & Others 02 (Rajasthan), wherein it has , 66 - Secondary evidence - conditions as laid down u/s 66 d by petitioners - Neither any titioners for procuring original document to show that original e bald statement by petitioner ccepting a photocopy of original piece of evidence - Application aised on behalf of the petitioner. counsel for the petitioner and 6 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. per the plainti him; and that as no police c lost agreemen contrary to th P4)filed by th shows that no has been the question are stated by the was no req FIR/complaint the relied upo circumstances petitioner is d relevant find It has been argued on beh aintiff the Agreements in question hat the said assertion is liable to be ce complaint has been registered b ments.However, the said contentio o the record, as a bare reading o y the plaintiff seeking permission t no such averment has been mad the consistent case of the plaint are in the possession of the defen the plaintiff that the said agreeme requirement on part of the laint.For this reason, the petitioner upon judgement as the same is no nces of the present case. It would al is deliberately trying to obfuscate ndings of the learned Court below a “6. Defendant, denied the posse written statement. As per defe reported to the police regarding t documents and in the absence of be said that both documents are permission to lead secondary evid 7. As regard the existence of b admitted in his written statemen p. 5 behalf of the petitioner that as ion have been lost/misplaced by o be rejected being unbelievable, ed by the plaintiff regarding the ntion of the petitioner is totally g of the application (Annexure ion to lead secondary evidence made therein by the plaintiff. It laintiff that the agreements in efendant. It has nowhere been ements are lost. As such, there the plaintiff to register an ner can derive no benefit from s not applicable to the facts and also therefore appear that the scate the issue. In this regard, ow are as under: - ossession of both documents in defendant, there is no report ing the loss of above mentioned ce of any police report, it cannot re lost and due to that reason evidence cannot be given. of both documents, defendants ment. As regard the loss of both 6 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 10. 11. 13.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo documents, it is the stand of pla are in possession of defendant defendant. In these circumstances both documents are not lost defendant, which is denied by d need to report the matter to po documents. 8. In these circumstances, the ex and plaintiff is not in possession established and there is no documents except by way of sec also perused the authorities relie for defendant and law discussed disputed, but with due regard to not applicable of the facts of the p In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No p. 6 f plaintiff that both documents dant, however, denied by the ances, when plaintiff alleged that lost and is in possession of by defendant then there is no to police regarding loss of both he existence of both documents ssion of both documents stands other way to prove both f secondary evidence. This court relied upon by learned counsel ssed in those authorities is not rd to those authorities, they are the present case.” resent petition is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document