VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against an order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula allowing the respondent herein to lead secondary evidence to prove the suicide note alleged to have been executed by her late husband.
(2.) IT was the case of the respondent that the carbon copy of the suicide note was supplied to her by the brother of her husband and the original thereof was with the opposite party, which they have failed to produce in Court. The prayer was, thus, made for allowing her to lead secondary evidence by producing carbon copy by way of secondary evidence. The petitioner herein challenged the sanctity of the said document. However, this plea was rightly rejected by the Courts below by observing that by merely permitting a party to lead secondary evidence the document would not be deemed to have been proved. It was still for the respondent herein to prove the said document by leading cogent and admissible evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below have allowed the application by ignoring the well settled principles of law that unless and until it is proved that the original cannot be produced the secondary evidence to prove a document cannot be allowed.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ved Parkash v. Rattan Lal Aggarwal, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 366 : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 103 to argue that before a secondary evidence could be allowed it was the requirement of law to prove the execution of the said document. However, in the present case no such attempt was made and therefore, the order cannot be sustained.;