document. Thereafter, he has admitted that, generally original document would be in possession of the purchaser. He has also stated that, he along with the defendant has handed over the said document to the bank and loan was obtained by him from the bank. Therefore, it is clear that, the original agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 is in possession of the plaintiff. When plaintiff has specifically admitted the document i.e., agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 which was confronted to him by the defendant, he cannot deny the existence of the said document and now cannot come up with the plea that, he has not executed the said document. The objection filed by the plaintiff, contradicts with his oral evidence wherein he has admitted the document in unequivocal terms. Therefore, the plea taken by the plaintiff in his objection appears to be false. 10. It is to be noted that, plaintiff has alleged fraud and misrepresentation in execution of agreement of sale dated 23.12.2020. It is the contention of the defendant that, prior to the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 under which the sale consideration was Rs. 1,95,00,000/-. Under these circumstances, It appears that, the documents sought to be produced is very much relevant to determine the controversy between the parties and meet the ends of justice. Therefore, this court is opinion that, it is just and proper to direct the plaintiff to produce the said document for completing adjudication of the issues between the parties. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative .
