In a brief but pointed hearing at the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order that had refused permission to introduce a photocopied rent agreement as secondary evidence. The case lingering in the system for nearly a decade took another decisive turn as the judge remarked that the attempt appeared more like a delaying tactic than a legitimate legal request.
Background
The dispute began when Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya filed a suit for possession against Vinod Kalia, alleging he was a tenant who needed to vacate the premises. Kalia did not dispute being a tenant, but he questioned the plaintiff’s ownership, kicking off a long-drawn courtroom struggle.
Filed in 2015, the matter has been stuck at the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence since 2019, with only one witness examined so far. In August 2022, Kalia sought to introduce a photocopy of a 1991 rent agreement, claiming the original had been executed with one Roshan Lal, who allegedly misplaced it.
The trial court refused this request, and Kalia approached the High Court under CMPMO No. 650 of 2025.
Court’s Observations
Justice Goel heard the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Nitin Soni, and went straight to the core issue whether the requirements of Section 65 of the Evidence Act were satisfied.
The judge underlined that secondary evidence can be used only when very specific conditions are met, such as the original document being lost, destroyed, or in possession of someone inaccessible to the court. Here, none of those grounds were convincingly established.
“The bench observed, ‘Not even an affidavit of Roshan Lal who allegedly held the original document was filed. Nothing prevented the petitioner from examining him as a witness.’”.
The Court also pointed out that the lone defence witness examined earlier had no connection with the 1991 agreement and had even claimed that the defendant himself owned the shop—an assertion that contradicted the very basis of the alleged tenancy document.
Justice Goel also took note of the timeline. The photocopy application was filed three years after the evidence stage began. The judge remarked that such timing indicated a clear attempt to drag the matter further.
“The filing of the application… was also a ploy to delay the case,” the bench noted, highlighting that the defendant had been repeatedly granted time to lead evidence but failed to do so adequately.
Decision
After reviewing the lower court’s order and the case record, Justice Goel found “no infirmity, much less perversity” in the trial judge’s decision. The High Court refused to interfere and dismissed the petition outright, closing all pending miscellaneous applications as well.
With this order, the long-pending tenancy suit now returns to the Dehra trial court, expected to move ahead without further procedural hurdles created by secondary-evidence claims.
The matter concluded with the Court upholding the trial court’s refusal to allow secondary evidence and dismissing the petition.
Case Title: Shri Vinod Kalia vs. Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya through Shri Rattan Chand Kalia
Case Number: CMPMO No. 650 of 2025