Learned counsel for the appellant contended that FIR No. 200 dated 27.10.2007 has been registered against plaintiff-respondent no. 1 regarding forgery of the Bahi entry and therefore, plaintiff's suit could not have been decreed and the instant appeal should be admitted. The contention cannot be accepted. The said FIR has been lodged during the pendency of the instant appeal. Defendant no. 7 never took any step for initiating criminal case against the plaintiff either during the pendency of the suit or during pendency of the first appeal although the suit stood instituted on 13.8.2003. Thus, for four years no FIR was lodged against the plaintiff. Moreover, even in the written statement, defendant no. 7 did not plead the Bahi entry to be forged. That apart, defendant no. 7 in the witness box specifically admitted his signatures on the Bahi entry in question and also admitted to have received Rs 70,000/- from the plaintiff. Consequently, the question of Bahi entry being forged one does not arise. The FIR appears to have been lodged only to stall the claim of the plaintiff which had been decreed by the courts below. As per defendants own admission, the Bahi entry cannot be said to be forged. Consequently, merely on the ground of FIR having been lodged during the pendency of the instant second appeal, the appeal cannot be admitted.
