BHRAMWATI Vs. VINEET KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question which has crept in for consideration before this Court is a precise interpretation of Rule 3 of Order 18 in the given set of case as placed by the counsel before this Court. The sole bone of contention and the debate would be, that as to which of either parties has to discharge the burden of proof at an appellate stage based on the pleadings taken by them before the Trial Court, or if an issue is framed as an additional issue by the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 25 of the C.P.C. at appellate stage.

(2.) For the purpose of brevity, Rule-3 of Order 18 is quoted herein. This is the material provisions applicable dealing with burden of proof, governing the proceedings at trial stage.

(3.) Apparently, in the present case, the plaintiff in the suit, has explained the reason which resulted into a belated filing of the suit on 2nd April, 2002, challenging the veracity of the sale deeds dated 15th July, 1996 and 23rd April, 1997. The issue of controversy pertaining to the question of limitation for the purposes of institution of the suit for challenging a sale deed has been contained in part-III of the Limitation Act, which, under its Section 56 provides that the period of limitation to be three years when the issue of registration comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff.