Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1111 (PNJ)

DEHAR VANSHI MINI RICE MILLS v. RAJENDER KUMAR

2014-07-25

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. By way of this order, I shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR Nos. 4805 and 4806 of 2014 being inter-connected. However, the facts are extracted from CR No. 4805 of 2014. 2. The defendant is in revision against the order dated 11.07.2014 by which its application for leading secondary evidence has been declined. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,90,725/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. The defendant alleged in the written statement that the payment has already been made in three transactions and the effect thereto has been brought in the income tax returns maintained by him. It is nowhere mentioned in the written statement that when the amount was paid/re-paid to the plaintiff or some receipt was also executed by the plaintiff. The defendant then filed an application for leading secondary evidence to prove photocopy of some receipt alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff acknowledging the payment made by the defendant for the amount claimed in the suit. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant has not taken any such plea in the written statement about the receipt of the payment made to the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the receipt was executed but lost and thus a DDR was made on 28.11.2013 and until and unless the Trial Court affords opportunity to prove the loss of the document, it would be pre-judging the issue that there is no receipt. In this regard, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Vs. Surinder Singh and Others, (2014) 174 PLR 147. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record from which I have fond that the petitioner does not have any case for interference in this revision petition. 6. I would, first of all, take up the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in Jawahar Lal's case (supra). In the said case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of a contract dated 16.05.1994. 6. I would, first of all, take up the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in Jawahar Lal's case (supra). In the said case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of a contract dated 16.05.1994. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed application for leading secondary evidence to prove photocopy of the agreement alleging that the original thereof was handed over to his counsel who had informed him that it has been lost from his brief. In this background, this Court had held that the photocopy of a document can be produced in evidence only when it is alleged and proved that the original was in existence and is lost or destroyed or is in possession of opposite party who failed to produce it or in any other circumstances mentioned in Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 7. In the present case, the situation is altogether different. The defendant has not disclosed or averred a word that there was a receipt executed by the plaintiff at the time when the payment of the amount was made. It is well settled that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered and it also cannot be believed that if the defendant had made the payment to the plaintiff against a receipt, he would not have mentioned this fact in the written statement. 8. In view thereof, the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner and there is no scope for interference. 9. Insofar as the second petition bearing CR No. 4806 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner had also filed application for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for comparison of signatures of the plaintiff on the receipt with the specimen signatures available on the record of the case. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the said application has been dismissed without passing a detailed order. 11. However, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application on the basis of a detailed order passed while deciding the other application. 12. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in both the revision petitions and hence, the same are hereby dismissed.