Dismissed

Lrs of Ramesh Chand v. Kulwant Kaur

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2019CW/6700/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for production of an original power of attorney under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. The lower court found the application was filed to delay proceedings. This court upheld the lower court's order against the petitioner's assertion that the defendant falsified its stance on the document's possession.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lrs of Ramesh Chand Vs Kulwant Kaur — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6700/2019

¶3

LRs Of Ramesh Chand:

¶4

Prito Devi W/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 66 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Mahal Katora, Tehsil Jwali, District Kangra (H.P.).

¶5

Sarla Devi W/o Ravinder Singh D/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 49 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Sakri, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra (H.P.).

¶6

Asha Devi W/o Gorkhi Ram D/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Bhatoli, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra (H.P.).

¶7

Raksha Devi W/o Ramesh Chand D/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Harsar, Tehsil Jwali, District Kangra (H.P.)

¶8

Usha Devi W/o Fakir Chand D/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Saladi, Tehsil And District Kangra (H.P.).

¶9

Surender Kumar S/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Mahal Katora, Tehsil Jwali, District Kangra (H.P.).

¶10

Anju Devi W/o Kewal Kumar D/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Lajhwasi, Tehsil Harchkiya, District (H.P.). Petitioners No.1 to 5 & 7 through their power of attorney holder Surender Kumar S/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Choudhary, R/o Mahal Katora, Tehsil Jwali, District Kangra (H.P.).

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

Kulwant Kaur W/o Shri Jaswant Singh, By Caste Kambosikh, Resident Of 64 GB, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶14

Kulvinder Kaur W/o Shri Jasveer Singh, By Caste Kambosikh, Resident Of 64 GB, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶15

Jasveer Kaur W/o Shri Kala Singh,, By Caste Jatsikh, Resident Of 54 GG Sangatpura, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-6700/2019]

¶18

Devi Lal S/o Shri Hanuman, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of 3/4 DJM At Present Res. Chack 1 RTM, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶19

Jasvant Singh S/o Shri Malkeet Singh, By Caste Kambosikh, Resident Of 64 GB, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶20

Sub Registrar, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶21

District Collector, Sri Ganganagar.

¶22

Jasveer Kaur W/o Shri Gurmeet Singh, By Caste Tarkhan, Resident Of 11 SJM, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.R. Chawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi

¶25

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶26

04/07/2019

¶27

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.03.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) vide which petitioners’ application dated 04.10.2018 filed under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

¶28

Seeking annulment of sale deeds dated 16.02.2006; 02.04.2008; and 28.05.2011 plaintiff stated that the same have been executed on the basis of forged power of attorney, which was neither dated nor signed by the plaintiff.

¶29

In response to the suit so filed, the defendants filed written statements and contended that the original power of attorney had been produced before the registering authority at the time of execution of the registration of the sale deed in question.

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CW-6700/2019]

¶32

During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application dated 04.10.2018 under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter-alia, indicating that the plaintiffs had moved an application before the registering authority (SubRegistrar, Anoopgarh) under the Right To Information Act in which he was informed that the registry was made on the basis of a copy of power of attorney and even those documents have been destroyed by the concerned registering authority on 28.08.2018. With these assertion in the application, the plaintiffs requested the Court to issue direction to the defendants to produce original power of attorney, on the basis of which, the contentious sale deeds had been executed.

¶33

In response to the application so filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants filed a reply and stated that the original power of attorney is not with the answering defendant No.5 (caveator herein).

¶34

After considering the matter and the arguments advanced by rival counsel, learned Trial Court rejected petitioners’ aforesaid application dated 04.10.2018, interalia observing that last opportunity to lead evidence had been granted to the plaintiffs on 24.10.2016, and instead of leading the evidence, they have filed the application, simply with a view to delay the proceedings.

¶35

Mr. H.R. Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been the assertion of the defendant No.5 that he has filed the original power of attorney in the office of the Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed, whereas, such fact is false on the face of it, which is evident from perusal of information supplied to him under the Right To Information Act. This being

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

[CW-6700/2019]

¶38

the position, he asserted that the original power of attorney is undoubtedly in the power and possession of the defendant No.5 and his assertion that the same is not with him is false.

¶39

Mr. Trilok Joshi, learned counsel appearing as caveator on behalf of respondent No.1 contended that the defendant No.5 has clearly denied the existence of original power of attorney with him and mere fact that he had earlier stated that the same was submitted in the office of Registrar, cannot be construed to mean that the same is in their power and possession. He submitted that though last opportunity had been granted to the plaintiffs, they somehow do not intend to lead evidence and have moved this application, simply with a view to buy time.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the defendants have taken a shifting stand. However, in view of the denial of the fact that the original power of attorney is not with them, the Court cannot of course compel them to produce the document sought by the plaintiffs, but can draw appropriate inference, as and when occasion so arises.

¶41

No fault can, however, be found in the order dated 11.03.2019, passed by the learned Court below.

¶42

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The Stay Petition No.6564/2019 also stands dismissed.

¶43

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶44

25-Ramesh/-

Lrs of Ramesh Chand v. Kulwant Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lrs of Ramesh Chand v. Kulwant Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Singh Saktawat Vs R.F.C.,Udaipur and Ors.

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Singh Vs Lichman Ram and Ors.

Executive Director Adm Rsrtc and Ors. Vs Smt. Indra Devi

Smt. Santosh Kumari Lamba Vs Anil Kumar Lamba

Manphool Vs State of Rajasthan

Chottu Singh Vs Sohan Singh