The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving the existence and execution of the original document before leading secondary evidence, and the importance of giving notice to produce the original document as per the requirements of the Evidence Act.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1866 of 2008; Civil Revision No. 2152 of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 3502 of 2008, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions.

2. For convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 1866 of 2008 titled M/s. Enn Ess Electronics Jalandhar & others v. Smt. Harbans Kaur & others.

3. The petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the order dated 1.12.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller dismissing an application moved by the petitioners for leading secondary evidence. The respondents landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Eat Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the petitioners for ejectment of the shop, on the ground of arrears of rent, ceased to occupy.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that a detailed reply to the ejectment petition was filed wherein a stand was taken that a compromise/agreement was arrived at between the parties on 29.8.2001 and as per the said compromise three separate tenancies were created and that the petitioners were in possession of the demised premises in pursuance to the said compromise.

5. The factum of compromise/agreement was denied by the landlord and an application was moved on 6.3.2003 for production of the compromise deed/agreement. The petitioners denied the possession of the original agreement and claimed that the same was in possession of the landlord. The application moved by the landlord for production of said agreement was disposed of by passing the following order :

"Heard on the application for production of documents. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated at bar that he is not in possession of original compromise deed. He was in possession of photocopy of the same, which is already placed on record. In view of the statement of the counsel for the respondent, the Application for production of documents stands disposed off. Perusal of the file shows that Application for the appointment of Local Commissioner is pending for disposal. For reply of this application the case is adjourned to 6.6.2003."

6. On February 19, 2004 when the landlord appeared as AW-2 Satinder Singh Chhabra produced compromise-cum-agreement dated 29.8.2001 for confronting him. Further cross-examination was deferred and the case was adjourned to 20.2.2004. It is the case of the petitioners that on 19.2.2004, when one of the partners of the firm i.e. Satinder Pal Singh Chhabra was going on his scooter, the file containing carbon copy of the compromise deed was lost near the BMC Chowk Jalandhar and FIR/DDR was lodged with the Police Station Division No. 4 on the same day i.e. 19.2.2004. It is the case of the petitioners that the said compromise-cum-agreement was not admitted by the landlord and it was on account of that an application for leading secondary evidence to prove the Photostat copy of the compromise-cum-agreement was moved.

7. It is further the case of the petitioners that in another ejectment application provisional rent was assessed against which the petitioners preferred Civil Revision No. 1579 of 2005. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 12.2.2007 and the said petition was dismissed. The copy of the order passed by this Court has been attached as Annexure P-9 with the present revision petition. The application moved by the petitioners for leading secondary evidence was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The said order has been impugned in this revision petition.

8. The application for secondary evidence filed by the petitioners was opposed by the respondents-landlord on the following grounds :

1. That no compromise/agreement was arrived at between the parties on 29.8.2001.

2. That the agreement allegedly arrived at between the parties on 29.8.2001 was insufficiently stamped and, therefore, was not admissible in evidence and, thus, permission for secondary evidence could not