The main legal point established is that the admissibility and genuineness of secondary evidence can be examined at a later stage, but the belated filing of an application for secondary evidence may not provide the mechanism for proper examination, leading to dismissal of the application.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Malerkotla whereby an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1 Bigha 14 Biswas of land as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04. The sale deed allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of mother of the defendants i.e. sale deed dated 17.07.1989 in respect of suit land was claimed to be illegal, null and void. Permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner.

3. Plaintiff pleaded that in the year 1989, mother of the defendants in connivance of Mohd. Ismail, Numberdar of the village and Hameed Khan got executed the sale deed in her favour by way of impersonation. Plaintiff never appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar, Malerkotla, nor executed the sale deed dated 17.07.1989.

4. . The suit was contested by the defendants.

5. Plaintiff led his evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff closed the evidence on 20.05.2015 by making following submissions before the trial Court:-

"Stated that in the evidence of the plaintiff, the judgment dated 04.12.2014 tilted as Piara Singh vs. Avinash Kaur as Ex.P-3 and Judgment dated 04.12.2014 titled as 'Baksish Singh vs. Avinash Kaur as Ex.P-4, Affidavit of Mohd. Ismail dated 24.08.2006 marked as Mark-A and Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 of village Sadrabad Ex.P-5 close the evidence of the plaintiff after tendering the aforesaid documents."

6. The affidavit of Mohd. Ismail dated 24.08.2006 was marked as Mark 'A'. Thereafter defendants also concluded their evidence. No evidence was led in rebuttal. When the case was fixed for arguments, an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act came to be filed with the pleadings that the alleged sale deed dated 17.07.1989 executed by the plaintiff in favour of mother of defendants was illegal and result of fraud and the plaintiff wants to prove the signature and affidavit scribed by the deponent Mohd. Ismail. The stamp paper and affidavit was purchased by Mohd. Ismail from Shiv Kumar Bansal on 24.08.2006. Mohd. Ismail was examined as witness on 17.09.2015 as DW-2. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the witness denied his signature on the stamp paper which was allegedly purchased by him on 24.08.2006 and the same was used in the affidavit by him.

7. The application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act came to be filed at the stage of arguments particularly when no evidence was led by the plaintiff in affirmative evidence, nor any such evidence was brought in rebuttal.

8. The trial Court vide order dated 26.07.2016 accepted the application on the premise that Mohd. Ismail was examined as DW-2 and has denied the execution of affidavit dated 24.08.2006. The original of the affidavit was not in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 17.07.1989 executed by him on the ground of fraud. In the affidavit dated 24.08.2006, Mohd. Ismail has also supported the version of the plaintiff and by denying the execution of the affidavit. In view of this, the trial Court allowed the application by way of secondary evidence as well as for leading additional evidence.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff can lead secondary evidence by exhibiting the same at the relevant stage, even if the same was objected to by the opposite party.

The document can be received in evidence without commenting upon its authenticity and genuineness at that stage. After receiving the document in evidence with objection, the trial Court can examine the admissibility and genuineness of the document at the later stage. If the execution of such document