In order to produce secondary evidence, the party must prove the existence and execution of the original document.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court declining the prayer of the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence of rent receipt dated 16-8-1984.

2. Plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a suit for possession against the defendants on the basis of title. Defendants in their written statement denied the ownership. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act was made by the plaintiff, asking the defendants to produce rent receipt dated 26-8-1984, alleged to have been executed by Kartar Kaur under which Kartar Kaur is stated to have paid Rs. 180/- as rent upto 31-8-1984. Defendants in their reply denied to have executed any such receipt. Thereupon, plaintiff made an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to prove rent receipt dated 26-8-1984 by means of secondary evidence. In the application, it was claimed that receipt was scribed by Shiv Kumar, Document-writer and was attested by Bal Kishan and Vijay Kumar. Application on contest, was dismissed. This order is being challenged in the present revision petition.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision petition. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence, it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. The trial Court taking into consideration the pleadings as well as other circumstances of the case, came to the finding that receipt does not seem to be genuine. The trial Court also found that the very existence of the document is itself doubtful one. In view of this finding, the trial Court rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence as he had failed to prove this very existence of the receipt.

4. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to/costs.