Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Gurjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Tejpal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
The instant petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar, vide which the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-plaintiffs) to produce secondary evidence in respect of Will dated 17.11.1979 stated to have been executed by S. Budh Singh, was allowed.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for separate possession by way of partition of properties fully described in the plaint, declaration and permanent injunction was instituted by the respondent-plaintiffs against the defendants (Harjinder Singh and others) and the present petitioner being defendant No.5 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner-defendant).
3. Plaintiff No.1-S.Tejpal Singh; defendant No.1-Harjinder Singh and defendant No.2-Smt. Daswinder Kaur, are the sons and daughter of Amrik Singh. Plaintiff No.2-Amit Bhatia is the son of plaintiff No.1-S. Tejpal Singh and grandson of Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh is the son of Budh Singh. The other defendants are the sons and daughter
The trial court erred by allowing secondary evidence regarding the Will without sufficient pleadings and at a late stage of litigation.
Court upheld the use of secondary evidence to prove a will's contents, despite procedural deficiencies, affirming the trial court's discretion.
Secondary evidence requires cogent evidence of document loss; mere assertions do not suffice under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The best evidence available should be produced before resorting to secondary evidence.
Civil Law – Secondary Evidence – Reliability of - A party to lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by trial court but if any party to suit has laid foundation of le....
A party seeking to introduce secondary evidence must establish a proper foundation regarding the original document's possession and the reasons for its non-production, as mandated by Section 65 of th....
Secondary evidence may be admissible when the original document is lost or misplaced, provided sufficient justification for its non-production is established.
Order VII Rule 14 CPC and Evidence Act Sections 65(a), 45 cannot be used belatedly to fill evidentiary lacunae; requires due diligence, notice, authentication; no supervisory interference absent perv....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
