ATUL AGRAWAL Vs. JANKRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2016 by 6th Additional Judge to the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.), whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order 11 Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking direction to the plaintiffs to produce original agreement dated 20.07.1989 by which the tenancy of the disputed shop has been transferred in the name of Late Tulsiram, has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 filed a civil suit seeking possession of the disputed shop and pleaded that they belong to Scheduled Castes and the disputed shop which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes was allotted to their predecessor Late Tulsiram by the Municipal Counsel Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) (respondent No.7). It is further pleased by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 that at the time of death of late Tulsiram due to the financial crisis they have taken loan from the petitioner and the petitioner has given the same same by obtaining thumb impression of respondent No.1 Smt. Janakrani on a blank stamp paper which was subsequently misused by the petitioner for transfer of tenancy of the disputed shop. The petitioner/defendant No.2 denied all the contentions raised by the plaintiffs by filing the written statement.

(3.) Petitioner pleaded that after the death of Late Tulsiram, plaintiff No.1 has duly transferred the tenancy of the disputed shop in favour of defendant No.2. According to the petitioner he has obtained a copy of the agreement dated 20.07.1979 which was executed in favour of Late Tulsiram by Sunil Kumar Sen to transfer the tenancy of the disputed shop. Petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC seeking direction to the plaintiffs to produce the original agreement dated 20.07.1989 and pleaded that the document is related with the disputed property and not for just and fair decision of the case. Since, the document is a private document and therefore, the same cannot be proved without calling its original and therefore the same may be called by the plaintiffs.