- (1.) The secondary evidence qua two registered mortgage deeds dated 9.6.1953 and 20.4.1960 has been sought by the plaintiff/petitioners in a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the land in dispute by way of efflux of time. Certified copies of the deeds are already on record. The trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner/plaintiff on 26.10.1998 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove the loss of aforesaid mortgage deeds. However, it held that the documents in question were quite relevant to settle the controversy between the parties. The trial court also observed that sometimes the receipt with regard to payment of money is written on the back of the mortgage deed itself to show the factum of redemption of the property.
(2.) None appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose the revision petition. Since this petition is pending for the last 14 years, therefore, the same cannot be kept pending anymore as the trial has been stalled.
(3.) In order to refute the observations made by the trial court, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that no payment was made to the plaintiff by the respondents so as to redeem the land in dispute, nor any such entry was made on the back of the mortgage deeds. He further submitted that the reply filed to the application for leading secondary evidence also does not indicate such fact. In any case, if the defendants have taken a plea with regard to payment of money, the same can be proved by way of leading evidence to the additional/secondary evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff/petitioner.;