118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-289-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 17.01.2023

M/s G.S. Enterprises

..…Petitioner

Versus

RSJ Consumer Products Private Ltd. and others

….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein, inter alia, is for setting aside order dated

05.01.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur,

whereby in a suit for mandatory injunction, the application filed by the

plaintiff/petitioner for giving permission to prove Bilties by way of secondary

evidence, has been declined.

2.

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to

issue notice to the defendant/respondents as no prejudice would be caused to

them. Notice to the respondents is thus dispensed with.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and gone

through the case file.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the documents sought

to be produced by way of secondary evidence, though is in existence, but the

same have already been relied upon by the plaintiff in another proceedings

which are sub judice in the Special Court (N.I. Act), South-East District, New

Delhi.

5.

Ordinarily this Court would not have interfered. However, in the

peculiar circumstances, it is borne out from the record, the plaintiff has filed

an application before the Court in New Delhi to return those documents so

that he can produce the same. While the said application has remained

ASHISH

2023.01.30 09:13

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-289-2023 (O&M)

-2-

pending, as a matter of expediency and in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Ld. Trial Court ought to

have allowed the plaintiff to produce the documents by way of secondary

evidence subject of course to production of original documents when the

same are returned by the Court in New Delhi pursuant to the decision on the

application already filed or by producing certified copies thereof. In this

context, reference may be had to Section 65 of the Act which permits

production of secondary evidence relating to documents, which is as under:-

“65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to

documents may be given.—Secondary evidence may be

given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document

in the following cases:—

(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the

possession or power— of the person against whom the

document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of

reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of

any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the

notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not

produce it;

(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original

have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person

against whom it is proved or by his representative in

interest;

(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when

the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any

other reason not arising from his own default or neglect,

produce it in reasonable time;

(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily

movable;

(e) when the original is a public document within the

meaning of section 74;

(f) when the original is a document of which a certified

copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force

in India to be given in evidence;

(g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or

other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in

ASHISH

2023.01.30 09:13

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-289-2023 (O&M)

-3-

Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the

whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary

evidence of