RAM SINGH Vs. PIRTHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner defendant has filed this revision against trial Court's order dated 6.5.1994 whereby plaintiff- respondent's petition filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and they are given an opportunity to examine Surjan Singh, previously working as Clerk with Sh. V.P. Saini, Advocate, Kurukshetra. Some times the law which is meant to impart justice and fair play to the litigant is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving heaven to the disappointed and dejected litigants, it negates their well established rights in law. The present case reveals the said story of a helpless ailing plaintiff who approached Court for his redressal alleging that his own counsel Sh. V.P. Saini, Advocate, Kurukshetra has betrayed his confidence by misusing his thumb impression in a different suit by filing written statement on his behalf whereby ownership of his valuable properties is declared in favour of defendant-petitioner. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff Pirthi and his wife filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the decree dated 21st March, 1985 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra is void, ineffective and illegal as the same has been obtained by playing fraud on them. They also prayed consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants Ram Singh and Kanshi Ram from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff's suit land. Plaintiffs adduced their evidence; thereafter defendants adduced their evidence. Plaintiffs did not produce any rebuttal evidence and when the case was at final stage, plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 17-A Code of Civil Procedure praying that they be allowed to examine Surjan Singh who was working as Clerk with Sh. V.P. Saini, Advocate in the year 1984-86 and the words "LTI of Pirthi" were written by Surjan Singh on the application, power of attorney and written statement of the suit leading to impugned decree dated 21.3.1985 against which this suit is filed by them.

(2.) The defendants-petitioners contested the petition alleging that the case is now at the final argument stage, the petition is delayed, plaintiff- respondents have not provided details of the file which they intend to summon. They also denied that Sh. V.P. Saini, Advocate ever misused thumb impressions of Pirthi or that the words "LTI of Pirthi" were ever written by Surjan Singh on the application, power of attorney and written statement of the earlier suit, culminating into impugned decree dated 21.3.1985. They also raised an objection that the plaintiff-respondents intend to fill up lacunae being earlier left while they were leading their affirmative evidence.

(3.) Considering the facts of the case, the lower Court allowed the plaintiff's petition by the impugned order and imposed a cost of Rs. 200.00 to compensate the defendant-petitioners for the delay being caused thereby.