2025:HHC:43217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.581 of 2024 Decided on: 11.12.2025 Gram Panchayat Mail … Petitioner Versus Shri Dharam Singh … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the present petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying therein opportunity to lead secondary evidence to prove on record the certified copy of the permission granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to file the suit has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner, which is Gram Panchayat, Mail, filed a suit for recovery against the present respondent. In terms of the averments made in Paras 18 and 19 of the plaint, the suit has been 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:43217 filed on the basis of a Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and after obtaining necessary sanction from DPO, Chamba in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act and Rules framed therein. During the pendency of this civil suit, an application was filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act by the petitioner, in terms whereof, it was mentioned that the petitioner has placed on record a document Mark-B. which was the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer, permitting the petitioner to institute the suit against the defendant. It was averred in the application that the plaintiff had summoned the concerned official from the office of District Panchayat Officer, Chamba along with the original record of the said letter. However, said official while appearing as PW-8, on 13.01.2023, deposed before the Court that the record of the said letter was not traceable, but he had brought an attested copy of the said document. On this ground, the prayer was made by the petitioner to lead secondary evidence to prove the existence and contents of the document. The application was resisted to by the non-applicant/defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the letter stood procured just to fill up the lacunae in the case of the plaintiff was a forged document. 3. Learned Trial Court in terms of impugned order dated 3 2025:HHC:43217 28.06.2024. dismissed the application by returning the following reasoning:- "6. In the present case, the case of the applicant/plaintiff fails under the ambit of Clause (C) of Section 65, because as per the pleadings and contents of the application, the original aforesaid document Le the said letter has been misplaced or not traceable. However, clause (C) clearly says that when the original document has been destroyed, lost or when the party offering the evidence of its contents cannot produce it in reasonable time for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect. But after going through the contents of the application, it is very clear that the plaintiff/applicant has misplaced the original letter due to his own negligence, therefore, he is not entitled to produce the secondary evidence in the present case. 7. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence, it is necessary for the party to prove the existence or execution of original document, secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of original document. 8. Secondary evidence can be permitted to be produced if the party establishes the factual foundation for the same i.e. for not producing the original documents on record. before the Court and in the present scenario, the applicant le plaintiff has negligently misplaced the original 4 2025:HHC:43217 document due to his own default/fault. Hence, he is not entitled for producing the secondary evidence in the present case. Thus, the present application is considered and rejected due to reasons discussed above. Application stands disposed of. it be tagged with main case file for records. Be listed for PWs on 30.08.2024. Steps be taken within 7 days. Consider it exceptional opportunity." 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. The document which the petitioner intends to prove by leading secondary evidence is the certified copy of the permission which was granted to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat to institute the suit against the respondent. As the permission, according to the plaintiff, was awarded by the Authority in terms of the provisions of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act and Rules framed thereunder, obviously, such document is a public document as defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. The same being a public document, secondary evidence qua the same can be lead in terms of Section 65 (E) of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. In this background, if one peruses the order passed by the learned Trial Court, one finds that the application stands 5 2025:HHC:43217 evident that the plaintiff had misplaced the original letter due to its own negligence, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to produce the secondary evidence in the present case. 7. While passing this order, learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the plaintiff herein was not a private individual, but was a Gram Panchayat. Further, learned Trial Court of the Indian Evidence Act to take care of such a situation, i.e. the situation with regard to leading secondary evidence qua a public document, i.e. Section 65 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. All this renders the impugned order to be bad in law. In fact, in light of the provisions of Section 65 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner had a right to lead secondary evidence qua the document in issue and in the facts of the case wherein it was the Gram Panchayat which had filed the suit for recovery, Interest of justice would have been served had an opportunity being granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence to prove the document by leading secondary evidence. 9. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set and the learned Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner herein to lead secondary evidence qua the document 6 2025:HHC:43217 in issue. 10. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 11, 2025 (Rishi)