None 4950 of 2008 on 15 July 2004

C.R. No. 4950 of 2008 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.

C.R. No. 4950 of 2009

Date of Decision: September 1, 2009

Satish Kumar

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Ramesh Chand

…..Respondent

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

-.-

Present:-Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Vide impugned order, an application under Section 65 of theIndian Evidence Act filed by the plaintiff- respondent has been allowed toenable the plaintiff- respondent to prove the agreement of sale dated July15, 2004.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that a false story regardingthe existence and loss of the agreement of sale has been concocted by theplaintiff- respondent and that the trial Court has acted illegally in permitting the plaintiff- respondent to lead secondary evidence. The present revisionpetition seems to have been filed with misconception. Vide impugnedorder, a presumption has been attached regarding the existence, execution,loss or contents of the agreement of sale. It is made clear that the impugnedorder will not, in any manner, tentamount to arrive at a presumption thatexistence, loss, execution, contents and admissibility of the allegeddocument has been admitted. Despite the impugned order, the onus will lieupon the respondent to establish that the said agreement of sale was actuallyexecuted or that it was lost, as alleged. He will have to establish itsexecution, contents and will have to establish its admissibility.Dismissed.

September 1, 2009 sanjay

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE