VINOD K.SHARMA,J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that respondents No. 2 and 3 are merely proforma respondents and therefore, their service be dispensed with. Ordered accordingly.
(2.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned trial court vide which application moved by the petitioner for leading secondary evidence has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner moved an application for leading secondary evidence for proving challan No. 3217 dated 25.3.2002 of Fabric Matty 4050-00 of Rs. 4,25,250 and challan No. 3239 dated 5.5.2001 of Fabric Matty 8337-75 of Rs. 8,75,464/- on the ground that the defendant-petitioner had retuned the goods material to the plaintiff vide above mentioned challans. It was claimed that the original challans were kept in possession of Sham Lal an employee of the defendant-petitioner. About 6 months back The employee had left the service of the defendant and when the defendant tried to locate the original challans which were in possession of Sham Lal the same could not be located; hence it was prayed that photo copies of the said challans be permitted to be placed on record.
(3.) LEARNED trial court came to the conclusion that though at the time of filing of written statement original challans were not produced and only the photo copies were filed. Learned court further observed that facts were within the knowledge of the defendants However, present application was moved when the last opportunity was given. It was also observed by the learned trial court that in the written statement the defendant petitioner never pleaded that originals were taken away by Sham Lal. Learned trial court came to the conclusion that in the absence of the originals, photocopies could not be allowed to be proved by way of secondary evidence. It was observed that the present application was mala fide.;