- (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. against the order of the learned Addl. Munsiff, Pali by which he has taken on record a certified copy of the sale-deed dated 25. 07. 1980 executed by the defendant late Raju in favour of Chanda Devi (not a party in the suit ).
(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the learned trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in taking on record the said certified copy. He further contends that Raju did not execute the said sale deed in favour of Mst. Chanda Devi. He lastly contends that the secondary evidence of sale-deed cannot be taken on record unless it is proved that the original sale-deed has been lost. In reply, it is contended by learned Counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners that the sale deed had been executed by the defendant Raju (father of Babu and Phula non-petitioners No. 2 & 3) in favour of Mst. Chanda who is not a party in the suit. It cannot be summoned from the vendee Chanda in view of the provisions of Section 130 of the Evidence Act and its certified copy is admissible as secondary evidence even if it is in possession of the defendant-petitioners as notice under Section 66, Evidence Act has duly been served upon them for its production. There is no substance in the revision petition. The sale- deed is said to have been executed by the defendant Raju in favour of third party i. e. , Chanda Devi. In the ordinary course of events, it should be in possession of the vendee Chanda. The sale-deed cannot be summoned from the vendee Mst. Chanda in view of the provisions of Section 130, Evidence Act. It is also the case of the plaintiff-non-petitioners that the vendee Chanda has returned the Sale deed to the defendants. Section 65, Evidence Act permits production of secondary evidence if the original document is in possession of the opponent and he fails to produce despite service of notice under Section 66, Evidence Act. It is not disputed that notice had duly been served upon the defendants for the production of the original sale-deed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. .;