Allowed

Sohan Singh Bagha @ Sohan Lal v. Gurmeet Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2018CR/1988/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the impugned order of the lower court which dismissed the plaintiff's application to bring on record a passport to prove absence during the execution of a GPA and sale deed alleged to be forged. The court held the evidence was essential for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside subject to payment of costs Rs. 10,000/-.

Sohan Singh Bagha @ Sohan Lal Vs Gurmeet Kaur… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CR-1988-2016 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

224

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CR-1988-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.02.2018

¶6

Sohan Singh Bagha @ Sohan Lal

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

Gurmeet Kaur and others

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶12

Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

¶14

AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 02.03.2016 (Annexure P-6), whereby an application moved by the plaintiff for bringing on record the copy of the Passport in a suit challenging the General Power of Attorney dated 04.12.1989 and sale deed dated 07.04.1992 executed by defendant Nos.1 & 2 in favour of defendant Nos.5 & 6, has been dismissed.

¶16

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiffs instituted the suit claiming to be joint owner and in joint possession to the extent of 2/3^rd share in the suit land with a declaration by challenging the aforementioned GPA and sale deed, on the premise that the plaintiffs were abroad at the time, when the GPA and the sale deed were executed. Plaintiff No.1, while staying in

¶17

Yogesh Sharma 2018.03.07 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

¶19

CR-1988-2016 (O&M)

¶20

United Kingdom had changed his name and another passport was issued. However, only one passport having his old name had been brought on record, but not new one. Both the passports are essential and necessary for the adjudication, because it would prove that plaintiff No.1 was not present at the time of the execution of the GPA and sale deed as there is allegation of forgery, but the Court below has committed illegality and perversity in dismissing the application, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned order, under challenge.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the aforementioned evidence would tantamount to filling up lacuna as the plaintiffs had already availed the remedy of leading evidence in affirmative and there is no rebuttal issue, even the application is bereft of the reasoning as to how and under what circumstances, the passport would be necessary and on account of the aforementioned fact, the application has rightly been dismissed, which should not be allowed and prays for dismissal of the present revision petition.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that the filing of the suit on the ground stated above is not in dispute. The GPA is dated 04.12.1989. Concededly, petitioner/plaintiff No.1 had already brought on record the passport, but other passport issued by the Government of United Kingdom had not been brought on record, which would enable the Court to form an opinion that as to whether the plaintiff at the time of the execution and registration of the GPA and Sale deed, was present or not. In my view, the aforementioned evidence is essential and necessary for the adjudication of the lis, which the Court ought to have taken into consideration, while adverting to the

¶23

Yogesh Sharma 2018.03.07 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

¶25

CR-1988-2016 (O&M)

¶26

arguments of the parties, but not in the manner and mode. Though there has been a delay in moving the application, that can always be taken care of by some compensation.

¶27

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside subject

¶28

to the payment of cost of ` 10,000/- which shall be condition precedent.

¶29

The present revision petition stands allowed.

¶30

( AMIT RAWAL) 23.02.2018 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma  Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No  Whether Reportable Yes/ No

¶31

Yogesh Sharma 2018.03.07 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sohan Singh Bagha @ Sohan Lal v. Gurmeet Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Singh Bagha @ Sohan Lal v. Gurmeet Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar and Ors. Vs Jogi Ram and Ors.

Prem Pal Singh Vs Pawan Bajaj and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs Harphool

Sombir Vs State of Haryana

Harpal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurdeep Singh (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Baljit Kaur Andors. Vs Parminder Singh (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Rajwinder Kaur and Ors.