Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modifying the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 and for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Trial Court vide which the second application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for leading secondary evidence has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 06.03.2017 for recovery of Rs.66,69,568/- along with interest and damages of Rs.5 crores along with interest for loss and damages caused to him by the defendant-respondents with a view to cheat the family of the plaintiff-petitioner and to send defendant-respondent No.3 to Canada fraudulently who married the daughter of the plaintiff-petitioner. During the pendency of the suit an application (Annexure P-2) was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for producing secondary evidence qua the existence of documents regarding the grant of immigrant visa of Canada to defendant-respondent No.3. Vide order dated 14.11.2018 the said application was partly allowed holding as under :

“6. This Court has gone through the contents of the application, its reply and the whole file. Perusal of the file reveals that the plaintiff has produced photocopy of affidavit of Arjun Singh Parmar, defendant No.3 (exparte), which proved prima facie its existence. Since the defendant No.3 did not come present and out of reach of the process of this court and there is no need to issue notice to defendant No.3 as per proviso of Section 66 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and plaintiff proved prima facie the existence of the above affidavit, therefore, as per Section 65 (a) of Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, permission is granted to plaintiff to prove the affidavit of Arjun Singh Parmar dated 29.7.2013 by way of secondary evidence subject to proof of its existence, loss and execution, but regarding the other documents i.e., file of WWICS deals and contains all the requisite declaration, self declaration submitted by Arjan Singh (defendant No.3) for procuring immigration visa from Canadian Govt, this court is of the view that since plaintiff has not produced copies of the above said declarations etc., to prove prima facie the existence of the above documents, therefore, no permission to prove the same by way of secondary evidence can be granted to the plaintiff.”

3. The aforesaid order was never challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner and the same attained finality. Thereafter, a second application (Annexure P-8) for secondary evidence was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for producing secondary evidence qua the existence of documents regarding the grant of immigrant visa of Canada to defendant-respondent No.3. This second application (Annexure P-8) is a verbatim copy of the first application (Annexure P-2) and relates to the very same documents as mentioned in the first application (Annexure P-2). Vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2022, the second application for secondary evidence was dismissed on the ground that the earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2018 and the contents were similar and that the said order dated 14.11.2018 was neither challenged in appeal nor in revision and the same had attained finality. Hence, holding the second application for secondary evidence not maintainable, the same was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the Trial Court has not appreciated all the documents that were appended with the case. He has further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through LRs. & Ors. 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 43