P&H: Upholds Order Allowing Secondary Evidence as original writing in custody of defendents of Disputed Document in Shop Possession Suit

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 11 Sep 2026
Headnotes

(i) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 — Secondary evidence — Where plaint specifically referred to an original writing said to be in custody of defendants and defendants disputed document in written statement, trial Court was justified in permitting plaintiff to...

(ii) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.65 — Secondary evidence of document in possession of opposite party — Secondary evidence may be given when original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of person against whom document is sought to be proved...

(iii) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 — Secondary evidence — Proof of documents — Contents of documents are to be proved by primary evidence, except in the cases mentioned in S.65. (Para 4)


Facts of the Case

P&H: Upholds Order Allowing Secondary Evidence as original writing in custody of defendents of Disputed Document in Shop Possession Suit

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court order permitting a plaintiff to lead secondary evidence of a disputed document in a suit for possession of a shop.

The case arose from a suit filed by Rampat against Monu, Vijaypal, M/s Tillu Ram and Company Private Limited and Gram Panchayat Daungra Aheer. Rampat claimed that a written document had been executed between the parties settling the terms and conditions relating to the shop. He said the original document was in the custody of the defendants.

Monu, one of the defendants, challenged the trial court’s...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File