Single judge Allowed revision against dismissal of application to produce a registered sale deed in a partition suit, holding relevance outweighs nine-year delay and imposing costs.
The impugned order admitting the application to produce the sale deed dated 28-10-1996 was set aside with a direction to permit its production.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R. No. 6246 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 6246 of 2009
Date of Decision: November 4, 2009
Usha Rani
…..Petitioner
Vs.
Vijay Kumar and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Ms. J.J. Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
An application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner to produce a copy of the registered sale deed dated October 28, 1996 has been dismissed vide impugned order dated September 17, 2009 solely on the ground that the case has been pending since seven years and that the sale deed which is sought to be produced, though was within the knowledge of the plaintiffpetitioner but they remained silent for a period of more than 7 years as such they are not entitled to produce/prove the sale deed.
C.R. No. 6246 of 2009 [2]
After hearing counsel for the plaintiff, in order to determine the relevance/ importance of the document sought to be produced, counsel was directed to make available a copy of the sale deed which is sought to be produced. By virtue of the sale deed, all the nine legal heirs of Kishan Chand had executed the sale deed pertaining to a house constructed on 13 marlas of land after the death of Kishan Chand. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs are widow and daughters of Kishan Chand claiming separate possession by partition of 1/9th share each in the two properties mentioned in the heading of the plaint and left by Kishan Chand. The sons of Kishan Chand, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 want to defeat the right of inheritance of the plaintiffs on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by Kishan Chand in their favour. In para 9 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed that the Will put-forth by the defendant- respondents is forged and fabricated document and that the defendants are estopped from propounding any such Will in view of the proceedings for succession certificate, a compromise and the sale deed dated October 28, 1996 by virtue of which 1/9th share of each heir was acknowledged and 13 marlas of land earlier belonging to Kishan Chand was sold. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC have though been omitted by amendment of Civil Procedure Code of 2002 but the present suit was instituted in the year 2001 as such the applicability of the amended provisions of CPC in the year 2002 is debatable point in the present case but the amendment will certainly have a prospective effect and will not defeat the rights of the parties in cases filed prior to the said amendment. Irrespective of the applicability of provisions
C.R. No. 6246 of 2009 [3]
of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC, the document i.e. registered sale deed dated October 28, 1996 seems to be a document relevant for just decision of the case especially when the said document is specifically referred to in the plaint. No doubt, the plaintiffs have been negligent in placing the said document on record or producing the same but they can be penalized for said negligence by imposing costs upon them. Even otherwise, the sons of Kishan Chand also seem to have signed the sale deed dated October 28, 1996. Apparently, the said document being a registered document signed by both the parties can be produced on the record, if not specifically denied by the signatories. The trial Court seems to have, without realizing the importance and relevance of the document disallowed the same to be proved- produced on the record. The document seems to be necessary for the fair adjudication of the matter.
The revision petition is allowed in limine and the order dated September 17, 2009 is hereby set aside with a direction to the trial Court that plaintiffs will be permitted to place on record a certified copy of the sale deed dated October 28, 1996. The said document may be put to the defendant- signatories. In case of admission of signatures of the defendants who are signatories and are alive, the documents will be exhibited and in case of denial, it will be proved as per the provisions of law. The plaintiffpetitioner, however, will be liable to pay the costs of Rs.10000/- to the defendants for production of the sale deed dated October 28, 1996 on the record. It is made clear that in case the cost is not paid, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed.
C.R. No. 6246 of 2009 [4]
Order dasti on payment of usual charges.
November 4, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application to produce a relevant sale deed solely due to the petitioner's delay in presenting it.
Whether the plaintiffs, despite negligence in producing a relevant document signed by respondents, are entitled to admit it in the interest of justice.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's scope-of-proof decision regarding a specifically referred document in a partition suit.
Usha Rani
Vijay Kumar
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
