PHOOLCHAND GARG Vs. GOPALDAS AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are legal heirs of late Brijbhushandas Agrawal, who expired on 26-4-1973. On 18-1-1982, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of a contract of sale alleging that late Brijbhushandas Agrawal entered into contract for selling the suit house for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and having secured an amount of Rs. 5,000/- by way of advance, executed an entry to that effect in the account books to the plaintiff and signed the same on affixing a revenue stamp on 11-11-1972. Admittedly, plaintiff has been holding a shop (part of the suit house) on tenancy from late Brijbhushandas. In the written statements, filed separately by different sets of defendants, the plaint allegations have been denied and the entry dated 11-11-1972 in the account books has been alleged to be false and fabricated one.

(2.) During the course of the trial some of the defendants served a notice under O.11, R.15/16 of the C.P.C. for inspection of the account-books containing the disputed entry. The account book was produced by the plaintiff and inspected by the defendants desirous of inspection. During the statement of the plaintiff, the entry in the account books was exhibited. When the defendants wanted to cross-examine the plaintiff on the entry in the account books, the cross-examination was objected to by the plaintiff by placing reliance on S.163 of the Evidence Act. It was argued that the defendant having given the plaintiff a notice to produce documents and the plaintiff having produced them, the defendant having inspected the same, the document ought to be treated as evidence of the defendant taking away his right of cross-examination. In fact, during the course of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner placing implicit reliance on Kisan Ghule v. Puransa, AIR 1928 Nag 119, that the entry in the account book needed no further proof and it becomes evidence in toto.

(3.) The contention of the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial Court. The plaintiff has come up in revision.