SURJIT Vs. DAYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 27th January, 1994 made by Shri Sant Parkash Sub -Judge, 1st Class, Karnal, whereby he has declined the application of the plaintiff -petitioner to take a specimen of the handwriting of Shri Yatinder Kumar, Advocate so that it can be examined against his admitted handwriting.

(2.) THE facts of this case, as alleged by the petitioner, are that on 15.1.1986 the petitioner, Smt. Surjit, who is said to be 80 years of age, went to Karnal accompanied by the respondents herein who are collaterals of her deceased husband to execute a lease deed in their favour so that the land owned by her could be utilized effectively. It is the admitted case that on the same day Shri Yatinder Kumar, Advocate drew out a lease deed in favour of the respondents in his own handwriting. It is further the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the fact that the lease deed had been executed in favour of the respondents, a collusive suit was maneuvered by the respondents with the active connivance of Shri Yatinder Kumar and a decree was obtained on the very same day i.e. 15th January, 1986, whereby the entire suit land which is stated to be more than 90 kanals was transferred in favour of the respondents. The petitioner thereafter finding herself to have been defrauded filed the present suit praying that the aforesaid decree be set aside as it had been obtained by fraud. In support of this plea the petitioner also pleaded that the written statement that had been filed in the earlier suit had been drawn out by Shri Yatinder Kumar in his own handwriting, although some other counsel was engaged to represent the respondents. The application under reference for the specimen signature of Shri Yatinder Kumar was accordingly made and has been declined by the trial Court primarily on the ground that the written statement in question, referred to above, had not been put to Shri Yatinder Kumar, advocate while he was examined as P.W.2 in the present proceedings and in the absence of any such question the application was misconceived.