IQBAL SINGH Vs. SURENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAM Pal was the owner of the property in dispute. He sold 5 Acres of land out of 8 Acres owned by him to Pirthi and Pushpa wife of Pirthi. According to Pirthi and Pushpa, at the time when the land was sold to them, Dharam Pal never disclosed that he had already suffered a decree with respect to this land in favour of his son. In order to clear the title and to get possession of the land, they filed two separate suits against Dharam Pal which were decreed. Sons of Dharam Pal in whose favour Dharam Pal had suffered a decree, filed a suit against Pushpa and Pirthi alleging therein that the decree obtained by Pirthi and Pushpa were not binding upon them and they were owners-in-possession on the basis of the decrees in their favour by Dharam Pal. The suit is being contested by Pushpa and the legal representatives of Pirthi who died during the pendency of the suit. According to the trail Court, both the parties have already concluded their evidence. When Iqbal Singh one of the sons of Pirthi was being examined as DW-1, one affidavit dated 20th November, 1979 alleged to have been signed by Iqbal Singh was put to him, He denied his signatures on the affidavit. After the evidence of the defendant was concluded, an application was filed to get the signatures compared on the affidavit with admitted signatures of Iqbal Singh. This application was allowed by the trial Court which is being impugned here in this civil revision.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the civil revision deserves to succeed. I have gone through the pleadings as well as the statements of the witnesses which have been brought on the record of this case. In pleadings, there is no mention of the affidavit. None of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff have referred to the affidavit. It was only for the first time that this affidavit was put to Iqbal Singh when he was being examined as DW-11. In the application, it has not been stated how this affidavit came into possession of the plaintiff, why the same was not produced at the time when the evidence of the plaintiff was being led. The same does not find mention in the list of reliance of the documents in possession of the plaintiffs. The document, on the face of its, cannot be accepted. No foundation was laid by the plaintiff at any stage of the suit or in the application for production of this document. Before allowing the application, the trial Court was required to examine the genuineness of this document.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the impugned order is set aside, civil revision is allowed and the trial Court is directed to decide the application afresh keeping in view the observation made herein above.