Secondary evidence requires strict adherence to conditions outlined in Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which were not met in this case.

Judgment

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order dated 18.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, whereby application filed by the petitioner to prove agreement to sell dated 15.03.2004 by way of leading secondary evidence, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of written agreement of sale dated 15.03.2004 as well as agreement of sale of full and final payment dated 21.06.2004, pleading therein that respondent No.1 had entered into a written agreement to sale dated 15.03.2004 with the petitioner-plaintiff regarding land measuring 18 biswas comprised in Khewat/Khata No.181/356 Khasra No.836/1 (0-18) situated within the revenue estate of village Rampur Sainia, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) for a total consideration of Rs.3 lacs and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to respondent-defendant No.1 at the time of entering into abovesaid agreement and remaining amount of sale consideration was also paid to defendant No.1 subsequently vide different writings as executed on the backside of the written agreement of sale dated 15.03.2004 and the said payment of Rs.3 lacs was made by the petitioner to respondent No.1 through cheques duly issued by him out of his account No.08311100000514 maintained by the petitioner in the Punjab and Sind Bank Branch, Dera Bassi. It is further pleaded that subsequently, on demand raised by respondent No.1, in addition to Rs.3 lacs already paid, petitioner paid Rs.1 lac more to respondent No.1 and agreement of sale of full and final payment was executed on 21.06.2004 mentioning therein that respondent-defendant No.1 had received the total sale consideration amounting to Rs.4 lacs from the petitioner-plaintiff and nothing is due towards him and petitioner can get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour at any point of time; further for declaration to the effect that sale deed bearing Vasika No.6826 dated 26.11.2008 executed by respondent-defendant No.3 being the alleged GPA of respondent No.1-Sukhwinder Kaur in favour of respondent-defendant No.2-Sukhbir Singh qua the suit property is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside being a result of fraud played upon by the defendants in collusion with each other upon the plaintiff. Petitioner-plaintiff also prayed for restraining respondent No.2 from further alienating, transferring or encumbering the suit property by way of sale, gift or mortgage etc. or in any other manner changing the nature of the suit property by illegally and unlawfully raising any construction in the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner for proving the agreement of sale dated 15.03.2004 by way of leading secondary evidence. He further contended that original agreement of sale is not traceable and the document is very much necessary for adjudication of the controversy properly. He further contended that petitioner could not file the application for leading secondary evidence earlier due to lack of knowledge. He further contended that in case the application of the petitioner is not allowed, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. In support of his contentions learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Smt. Shobha Rani v. Ravi Kumar, 1999(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 98 and Rajesh Yadav and others v. Balbir Singh and others,: 2014(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 941.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 supported the impugned order. He contended that Photostat copy of a document cannot be received as secondary evidence. He further contended that petitioner failed to prove as to how he procured the photo