- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, the learned trial court [Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar] has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC and application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner-plaintiff United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') seeking to lead secondary evidence by producing the letter of subrogation submitted by M/s Madhu Milan Syntax in favour of petitioner- Insurance Company, who was paid the compensation by the petitioner Insurance Company, to be recovered from the respondent-defendant M/s Shrimal Transport Service since the loss of goods in question took place while the goods were in the custody of the respondent-defendant- Shrimal Transport Service. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company submitted that since original letter of subrogation was misplaced and, therefore, photocopy of the same was produced and these circumstances, the application u/s 65 of the Evidence Act for allowing it to be led as a secondary evidence, has wrongly been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, against which the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
(3.) MR . S.M. Toshniwal, learned counsel for the respondent- defendant submitted that since the original document was not produced, no valid reasons were assigned by the petitioner Insurance Company, therefore, the secondary evidence could not be allowed by the learned trial court.;