VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar vide which application made by the plaintiff-respondent for leading secondary evidence to prove the execution of an agreement to sell was allowed.
(2.) THE case set up by the plaintiff-respondent was that an agreement for sale was executed and reduced to writing between the petitioner and respondent with regard to the agricultural land measuring 40 Kanals 14 marlas situated at village Kuttabadh Tehsil Ellenabad District Sirsa on 21.7.1998. It was the case of the plaintiff-respondent that the sale could not materialise and therefore, the petitioner herein handed over a cheque of Rs. 10 lacs to the plaintiff-respondent in lieu of the total amount of earnest money which was given to the petitioner at the time of signing of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff-respondent further claimed that the petitioner has denied the execution of the agreement to sell as such the same is required to be proved by producing secondary evidence. The application moved by the plaintiff-respondent was opposed on the ground that there existed no agreement between the parties and was merely concocted to justify the delivery of cheque of Rs. 10 lacs. It was also claimed that no amount was received towards the earnest money nor the plaintiff-respondent had the financial capacity to purchase the land. It was further claimed by the petitioner that the photo copy of the agreement was prepared to extort money from the petitioner by the plaintiff-respondent who was a lady of easy virtue. In support of the application, the plaintiff-respondent contended that the original agreement was in possession of the petitioner herein and therefore, permission should be granted to adduce secondary evidence to prove the execution of the agreement for sale. It was also claimed that the photo copy of the said agreement had already been placed on file.
(3.) HOWEVER , the stand of the petitioner was that the agreement for sale which was produced in the Court was materially different from the photo copy of the agreement of sale which was produced in another Court in a criminal complaint which has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.;