- (1.) 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. 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;