JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral):- The petitioners-defendants have challenged order dated 9.9.2014 vide which an application of the respondent-plaintiff for leading secondary evidence of agreement to sell dated 17.6.2005 has been allowed by the lower Court. A suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.6.2005 filed by plaintiff (Pal Singh), now deceased and represented by his LR Parvinder Singh, respondent No.1 herein is pending adjudication before the lower Court. Neither execution nor existence of said agreement to sell is in dispute between the parties. Record of the pending suit was lost and the case file had been reconstructed with the help of certified copies of the documents. Certified copy of the agreement to sell had also been exhibited as Ex.P1 in the reconstructed file. 2. Later on, it was discovered that said certified copy had been tampered with. The plaintiff had moved an application for initiating an enquiry against Daljit Singh, Attorney of the petitioners-defendants. 3. An application was moved by the plaintiff for leading secondary evidence for proving agreement to sell dated 17.6.2005 as certified copy Ex.P1 was found to be tampered with. 4. It is not denied by the petitioner-defendants that at the time of reconstruction of the case file taking extra precaution a separate set of case file was also ordered to be kept in the record room for safe custody. The petitioners defendants thus should not have objected to the request of the applicant-plaintiff for proving the said document by calling the second set of reconstructed case file from the judicial record room. Merely because the Court has allowed the plaintiff to prove the agreement to sell from that second set of case file kept in record room by way of secondary evidence, is not a ground for challenging the order dated 9.9.2014. 5. Even in preliminary hearing of this revision petition, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince the Court as to what prejudice would be caused to the petitioners-defendants by proof of such document from the second set of record available in the record room. Even otherwise provisions of Order XIII Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to call for such record for decision of the suit pending before it. 6. Even otherwise provisions of Order XIII Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to call for such record for decision of the suit pending before it. 6. The Court while allowing application of the respondentplaintiff for secondary evidence for proving agreement to sell dated 17.6.2005 as also affidavit dated 30.11.2005 from the said record, has duly taken care of the interest of the petitioners-defendants by giving them opportunity to rebut the evidence to be so adduced by the plaintiff so as to establish their respective version. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:- “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through file of the case very carefully. As it emerges out of the respective versions of the parties as noted above, it is clear that the original file of the case had gone misplaced where after the present suit is being proceeded on the basis of a reconstructed file. A perusal of the copy of the plaint as reconstructed by my learned predecessor shows that in Para No.4 thereof, the plaintiff had made specific recital that original agreement to sell was being filed alongwith the plaint. Likewise in Para No.8 of the reconstructed copy of the plaint there is also specific recital that original affidavit dated 30.11.2005 with regard to presence of the plaintiff was being filed in the Court. This specific version of the plaintiff with regard to filing of original agreement to sell and affidavit as pleaded in Para Nos.4 and 8 of the plaint respectively has not at all been disputed or controverted by the defendants in their written statement, who have rather admitted each and every assertion in the plaint while raising the only dispute that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. From the respective versions of the parties levelling allegations against each other whereby the plaintiff has accused the defendant of having tampered with the certified copy of the agreement to sell Ex.P1 in the reconstructed file and the defendant having accused the plaintiff of having tampered with the second copy of the agreement reconstructed by my learned Predecessor and consigned to the record room, Fatehgarh Sahib for safety precaution, it becomes clear that both the parties do admit the execution and existence of the agreement between them. 7. 7. There is neither any error of fact nor of law in the impugned order. 8. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ------------------