JOGINDER SINGH Vs. BALWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balwinder Kaur is stated to have entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 18 Kanals 9 marlas vide agreement to sell dated Feb. 1, 1994. According to this agreement, the sale was to be executed on or before July 9, 1994. Since, according to Joginder Singh, Balwinder Kaur refused to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the agreement to sell dated Feb. 1, 1995, a suit for specific performance was filed by Joginder Singh on July 21, 1994. Balwinder Kaur took the plea that in fact the land had been sold to Santa Singh, Harjinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Sarbjit Singh, (later on added as defendants No. 3 to 6) on June 3, 1994, in pursuance to an alleged agreement to sell dated Feb. 20, 1993. During the course of leading evidence, the defendants produced the original agreement to sell dated Feb. 20, 1993, purported to have been entered into between Balwinder Kaur and defendants No. 3 to 6. An application was moved on behalf of Joginder Singh, plaintiff, before the trial Court to call for report from the Security Printing Press, Nasik, about the date of issuance of the stamp paper, on which the agreement to sell was executed as also the date of the issuance of the revenue stamp which was affixed on the receipt in token of having received earnest money. This application has been declined by the trial Court leading the present petitioner to file this revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that prima facie this agreement to sell dated Feb. 20, 1993, is a forgery or is any case has been ante-dated inasmuch as one of the intend purchasers, Sarbjit Singh, was not even born on the alleged date of the agreement to sell dated Feb. 20, 1993. He further argued that if the report from the Security Press comes, it would substantiate the allegation of the petitioner that in fact the stamp paper on which he agreement to sell was written or the revenue stamp affixed on the receipt were issued or printed later than Feb. 20, 1993. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that from the very beginning, it was the case of the plaintiff that the so-called agreement to sell dated Feb. 20, 1993, is a forged document and at the stage of rebuttal evidence, the petitioner could not be allowed to move the application asking for the report from the Security Press.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice and to come to a correct conclusion that such an evidence is allowed to come on the file because the whole case might depend on the finding regarding the authenticity of the agreement to sell dated Feb. 20, 1993. The petitioner could only move such an application if the document i.e. agreement of sale dated Feb. 20, 1993, was brought on record by the respondents-defendants when they led the evidence. It is not the case of the defendants that the original agreement to sell was attached with the written-statement. It was only produced during the course of evidence. That being the position, it was only at the stage when the document was brought on the record that the applicant could move such an application. Consequently, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the trial Court and direct it to send for the report of the Security Press, Nasik, as asked for by the applicant in his application. The trial Court will try to expedite the disposal of the suit and may consider the desirability of sending an officer of the Court at the expense of the petitioner to Nasik to get the requisite report.