BAPU DHOPNDI DEVKAR Vs. TUKARAM SAKHARAM NAGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the Order dated 20-6-1995 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur below Ex. 52 (Review Application) in Suit No. 794 of 1992. The petitioner also challenges the original order passed by the trial Court dated 5-6-1995 in application below Ex. 48 filed by the petitioner praying that disputed documents be sent to the General Manager, Indian Security Press for expert opinion.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur bearing R. C. Suit No. 794 of 1992 for relief of possession of the suit property. The petitioners case in the said suit is that the plot in question has been allotted to the petitioner by the Government in the year 1986 and thereafter the petitioner constructed residential house in the suit property and inducted respondent as licensee. This suit is resisted by the respondent by filing written statement. The stand taken by the respondent in the written statement is that, the respondent was occupying the house constructed by him as back as in the year 1977. In support of this plea the respondent has relied upon several documents enumerated in Ex. 41. Petitioner, however, has taken objection to some of the documents mentioned in Ex. 41 i. e. at Serial Nos. 4 to 8. According to the petitioner the said documents are stated to have been executed in the year 1977-78, but the revenue stamp affixed on the said documents were of the year 1993-94; and, therefore, these documents were obviously fabricated to sub-serve the interest of the respondent. In the circumstances the petitioner by application Ex. 48 applied to the trial Court for the following reliefs :

(3.) THIS application was resisted by the respondent. The trial Court by Order dated 5-6-1995 was pleased to reject the application mainly on the ground that the respondent (defendant) has to prove those documents at the time of giving evidence, therefore, it is not necessary to send the said documents for experts opinion. Aggrieved by this decision the petitioner preferred review application (Ex. 52) which has met with the same fate in as much as the same came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 20-6-1995, for the Court has held that no ground for review was made out.