RAJESH AGARWAL Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed in this appeal shall also govern disposal of connected First Appeal No. 76/2003 (Dr. Shanti Raghuvanshi & another Vs. Dr. Rajendra Singh & others), since both these appeals have been filed against a common judgment and decree dated 6th February, 2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2001.

(2.) By taking shelter under Section 96 of CPC the defendants 4 to 8 have filed this First Appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 6th February, 2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2001; whereby, the suit of plaintiffs has been decreed.

(3.) No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since on the limited points Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants has addressed this appeal. The contention of learned counsel is that the manner and fashion in which the impugned judgment and decree has been passed by learned trial Court is surrounded by dark clouds of doubt. A glaring illegality has been pointed out by learned counsel on page No. 2 of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and has submitted that date has not been mentioned although the month of January, 2003 has been written in the judgment and the certified copy of the impugned judgment is a photocopy of the original, although on page No. 17 the date 6th February, 2003 has been mentioned. Learned counsel has also pointed out that application for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was submitted on 7th February, 2003 and the same was delivered on 14/2/2003 to the defendants. Learned counsel further submits that in the original judgment by altogether different typewriter date 6th February, 2003 has been mentioned. It has also been put forth by learned counsel that on 6th February, 2003 only, the final arguments were advanced by respective counsel for the parties and thus, it has been put forth by learned counsel that the judgment was already written much earlier to the hearing of the arguments.