Santokh Singh vs Parminder Singh and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated February 17, 1989, whereby the application filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner for permission to lead secondary evidence with respect to the photographs already marked in his evidence, was dismissed.

No reply was filed on behalf of the Defendants to the said application filed by the Plaintiff. The trial Court declined the said application primarily on the ground that the suit was already very old and was still at the stage of Plaintiff''s evidence and, therefore, it seemed to be a delaying tactics on the part of the Plaintiff to prolong the trial by filing the application to lead secondary evidence.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the photographs, about eighteen in number, were marked during the statement of the Plaintiff. The Petitioner apprehends that since the same had not been exhibited as such they may not be considered while appreciating the evidence at the final stage. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the application for leading secondary evidence to prove the said photographs was filed.

After hearing the learned Counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. When there was no objection to the marking of the photograhs, during the statement of the Plaintiff, the application for secondary evidence to prove the said photographs should have been allowed on payment of costs, if any. In case the trial Court found that the Plaintiff was delaying the proceedings, he could be put to further terms.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Plaintiff is allowed to lead secondary evidence on payment of Rs. (Sic)00/- as costs. It is further directed that the Plaintiff will be entitled to one opportunity only to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility. In case the trial Court finds that the Plaintiff is delaying the proceedings unnecessarily, the ad interim order, if any, in favour of the Plaintiff shall be vacated