The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of certified copies of registered sale deeds as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act and the Registration Act, especially in cases where the original document is allegedly lost.

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.

The petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 28.2.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Fatehabad, vide which application filed by petitioners for granting them permission to prove sale deed No.2328 dated 11.11.1971 by way of secondary evidence, was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by present petitioners-plaintiffs to the effect that they are owners in possession in equal shares of the property in dispute and that the revenue entries showing respondent-defendant no.2 to be owner in possession of the same is illegal, incorrect, against facts, null and void and for further declaration that the sale deed bearing No.16 dated 3.4.2008 executed by respondent-defendant no.1 in favour of respondent-defendant no.2 and subsequent mutation on the basis of said sale deed is also illegal, null, void and not binding on their rights with further relief of injunction restraining respondent-defendant no.2 from further alienating and transferring the land in dispute to any other person. Plea was taken that father of present petitioners-plaintiffs had purchased a vacant plot measuring 19 marlas, as detailed in the heading of the plaint from defendant no.1 for a sale consideration of 400/-vide registered sale deed No.2328 dated 11.11.1971, registered in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Fatehabad, and after purchasing the said plot, father of petitioners-plaintiffs had also constructed a house thereon and that earlier petitioners-plaintiffs used to reside with their father in the suit property and after his death on 11.5.2005, they became owners in possession of the same.

4. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by both the parties when the present application was filed by petitioners-plaintiffs for permission to adduce secondary evidence of sale deed No.2328 dated 11.11.1971, executed in favour of father of present petitioners-plaintiffs, which was declined by learned trial Court.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs that certified copy of the sale deed obtained from the office of Sub Registrar, Ex.P1, has already been placed on record. Further contends that the original sale deed was in possession of father of present petitioners-plaintiffs and, however, after his death, the same could not be located by present petitioners-plaintiffs and hence, the same has been lost. It has also been contended that inadvertently counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs did not file application for permission to lead secondary evidence at appropriate stage of the suit and only on that ground the application was dismissed by learned trial Court. It is also contended that petitioners have already led their evidence and that in case permission to adduce secondary evidence is allowed, petitioners are not to adduce any other evidence.

6. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants that though objection was taken by respondents-defendants when the evidence was being adduced by petitioners-plaintiffs that Ex.P1 is not admissible in evidence as original sale deed had not been produced and, however, despite that no application for permission to adduce secondary evidence was filed. It is further contended that case is sought to be reopened after evidence was adduced by both the parties and hence application cannot be allowed.

7. Case of present petitioners-plaintiffs is based on sale deed No.2328, dated 11.11.1971, which was allegedly executed by respondent-defendant no.1 in favour of father of present petitioners-plaintiffs. The sale deed is