Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Amarjit Singh son of Piara Singh -respondent No.1 -plaintiff(for brevity "the plaintiff") filed the suit against Darbara Singh @ Dalbara Singh son of Charna Singh -petitioners -defendant Nos.1 and 4 to 6 and other defendants(for short "the defendants") for a decree of declaration.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for permission to prove the sale -deed dated 18.07.1959 by way of secondary evidence, the certified copy of which is already on record. The trial Court accepted the application and permitted the plaintiff to prove the indicated sale -deed by way of secondary evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 02.08.2011, which in substance is, as under: Arguments of counsel for the parties on application U/s 65 of Evidence Act heard. Vide instant application, plaintiff/applicant has sought permission to prove sale -deed dated 18.7.1959, by way of secondary evidence. Perusal of record shows that certified copy of aforesaid sale -deed has already been placed on record, which means prove of prima facie existence of document in question. It has been further mentioned in the application that original sale -deed has been misplaced. This contention of the applicant has been supported by his duly sworn affidavit. Therefore, this court prima facie convince that document in question is not in possession of plaintiff. In these circumstances, as document is registered one and no prejudice is going to be caused to defendant, plaintiff is allowed to prove sale -deed dated 18.7.1959 by way of secondary evidence subject to proof of its misplacement and not traceable. Application disposed of accordingly. One PW Swaran Singh has been examined. On request of counsel for plaintiff, adjourned to 26.8.2011 for remaining evidence of plaintiff. Final opportunity stands extended till then subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/ -.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the trial Court, petitioner -defendant Nos.1 and 4 to 6 preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;