KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Baran dated 29-3-1974, whereby he allowed the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence with respect to the notice dated 1-8-1969 and the document dated 7-7-1969.
(2.) BRIEF facts which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiff, Permanand, filed a suit against defendant Laxmi Narain for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell a house for a sum of Rs. 2,2701/- by means of a document dated 7-7-1969. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- is alleged to have been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant as an earnest money. As the sale transaction has not gone through due to the default of the defendant the plaintiff claimed return of Rs, 3,000/- along with interest. The suit was presented before the learned trial Court on 5-11-1969, Along with the plaint the agreement dated 7-7-1969 was also produced. Issues were framed on 23-10-70, on which date admission and denial of documents also took place. There is an endorsement by the learned counsel for the defendant that the document dated 7-7-1969 has not been admitted by him. The plaintiff moved an application on 17-1-1972 that the original agreement filed by him is missing from the file of the Court, and that a forged document has been placed on the court file. He therefore, prayed that he may be given permission to lead secondary evidence of the agreement dated 7-7-1969. He also prayed that he may be permitted to lead secondary evidence with regard to the notice dated 1-8 1969. The defendant filed objections to this application on 8-2-1972, and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no secondary evidence could be permitted to be led. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 29-3-1974, granted permission to lead secondary evidence to the plaintiff with regard to the notice dated 1-8-1969 and with regard to the agreement dated 7-7-1969. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the learned Munsiff, the defendant has filed the present revision petition. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the learned trial Court is manifestly erroneous. It was further contended that unless the trial Court had recorded a finding that the original document has been lost, the permission to lead secondary evidence would be without jurisdiction. The attention of the Court was invited to the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was also contended that the Court did not record any finding whether the original document which is available on the record is a forged document, and whether the original has been replaced by the present forged document. It was also contended that there is no finding by the learned trial Court that the original agreement dated 7 7 1969 has been lost and that circumstances have arisen which should premit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. The contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. Nobody appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. The order of the learned Munsiff dated 29-3-1974 is an extremely perfunctory order, and there is no reason or speaking order on the application dated 17 1-1972 The learned Munsiff has not come into the grips with the facts of the case at all The allegations contained in the application dated 17-1-1972 were of a very serious nature. It has been stated in the application that the original document dated 7-7-1969 has been removed from the Court file, and that a forged document dated 7-7-1959, has been substituted therein. According to the Court file this document has been presented along with the plaint, and the document contains the endorsement of denial by the learned counsel for the defendant on 23-10 1970. Tampering of documents which are on Court file deserves a serious consideration at the hands of the Court whenevre such facts come to its notice. I am constrained to observe that the learned trial Court has totally ignored such an important aspect of the case. The learned trial Court also did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, and allowed the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence without recording that the necessary and requisite conditions for permit to lead secondary evidence, were present. The learned trial Court, in my considered opinion, has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction which has resulted in failure of justice. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is hereby allowed. The order of the learned trial Court dated 29-3-1974 is hereby set aside. The case is sent back to the trial Court for a fresh decision on the application of the plaintiff dated 17-1-1972 keeping in view the observations contained in this order.;