##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

123 CR-1201-2026

Date of Decision.:05.02.2026

Kuldip Singh …..Pe//oner

Vs.

Gurbhej Singh and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate

for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner herein is the plain(cid:28)ff in Civil Suit No. CS-113-

2022, (cid:28)tled Kuldip Singh v. Gurbhej Singh, pending before the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya. He has invoked the supervisory jurisdic(cid:28)on

of this Court to assail the order dated 20.01.2026, whereby the learned Trial

Court allowed the applica(cid:28)on filed by the defendant seeking permission to

lead secondary evidence in respect of certain agreements pleaded in the

wri4en statement.

2. As borne out from the record, the plain(cid:28)ff ins(cid:28)tuted the suit

for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of an agreement

to sell dated 17.06.2020. In the wri4en statement, the defendant took a

categorical defence that the transac(cid:28)on in ques(cid:28)on was, in fact, a loan

transac(cid:28)on of ₹2,00,000/-, camouflaged as an agreement to sell. To

substan(cid:28)ate this defence, reliance was placed upon earlier agreements

dated 08.06.2004, 13.06.2012 and 14.06.2017, which, according to the

defendant, were in the possession of the plain(cid:28)ff.

3. Since the plain(cid:28)ff denied the execu(cid:28)on as well as existence of

1 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 03:54:39 :::

CR-1201-2026 -2-

the aforesaid agreements, the defendant moved an applica(cid:28)on seeking

permission to prove the said documents by way of secondary evidence,

asser(cid:28)ng that the originals were not in his custody or power. The learned

Trial Court, a>er considering the pleadings and rival submissions, allowed

the applica(cid:28)on, subject to proof in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner assails the impugned order

by contending that it was incumbent upon the defendant to produce the

original agreements and, having failed to do so, he could not be permi4ed

to lead secondary evidence.

5. This Court does not find any merit in the aforesaid conten(cid:28)on.

6. It is well se4led that permission to lead secondary evidence is

governed by Sec(cid:28)ons 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sec(cid:28)ons

50 and 60 of BSA, 2023). Where a party specifically pleads that the original

document is in possession of the opposite party, and such opposite party

either denies its execu(cid:28)on or existence, the founda(cid:28)on for leading

secondary evidence stands prima facie laid. At that stage, the Court is only

required to see whether a reasonable explana(cid:28)on has been offered for non-

produc(cid:28)on of the original.

7. The admissibility and proba(cid:28)ve value of secondary evidence is

a two-stage process. At the first stage, the Court considers whether

permission to lead secondary evidence should be granted. At the second

stage, the party leading such evidence must s(cid:28)ll strictly prove the

execu(cid:28)on, contents and authen(cid:28)city of the document in accordance with

law. Grant of permission does not dispense with formal proof nor does it

amount to acceptance of the document as proved.

8. In the present case, the defendant has consistently pleaded

that the original agreements dated 08.06.2004, 13.06.2012 and 14.06.2017

are in the possession of the plain(cid:28)ff. The plain(cid:28)ff, on the other hand, has

2 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 03:54:39 :::

CR-1201-2026 -3-

denied execu(cid:28)on of any such agreements. In such circumstances, the

learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discre(cid:28)on in permiDng the

defendant to lead secondary evidence, leaving all issues regarding proof,

genuineness and eviden(cid:28)ary value to be decided at the appropriate stage of

trial.

9. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality,

perversity or jurisdic(cid:28)onal error. It is a discr