ASHOK CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. PYARE LAL SHIROMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners .

(2.) This writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the Executing Court by which the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. It appears that in a proceeding between the parties, there was a compromise and the compromise was accepted by the order dated 27.9.2008 in which a term and condition was there that from Sept. 2008, the petitioners will pay Rs. 900.00 as rent and they will vacate the premises in question in the month of Sept. 2010. It appears that there was some default, therefore, the respondent filed an application for execution on the ground that the petitioners have defaulted in making the payment. An objection was field by the petitioners stating therein that they are bona fide paying the rent and a receipt to that effect has also been submitted. The respondent-landlord denied the factum of genuineness of the most of the receipts and has said before the court that these are not his signature and the receipts are forged. The executing court accepted the contention of the respondent and has held that the objection field by the petitioners has got no merit that petitioners have misused the decree of compromise and have not complied with the order so court has issued a Dakhal Parwana to get the property vacated. The petitioners against this order has filed the present writ petition and has submitted that he is regularly paying the rent and the receipts are being issued by the respondent. In case he is admitting the signature on one of the receipts, then why he is not accepting the signatures made on the other receipts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the receipts submitted by the petitioners are forged. Further submission has been made that petitioners made an application that the signatures made on the receipts may be verified by the Handwriting Expert but the said request has not been accepted by the Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusal of the record, I am of opinion that these are the questions which cannot be considered and decided by this Court in a writ jurisdiction while exercising the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India as to whether the petitioners have paid the rent or the receipts filed before the executing court are genuine documents or not. It can only be considered by the court below on the basis of relevant evidence.