CHANDER PARKAS Vs. DUSHYANT KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 25.09.2010 whereby an application for re-examination of PW4-S.K. Tyagi, by taking the aid of provisions of Section 154 of the Evidence Act, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionerplaintiff instituted a suit, claiming declaration that he being owner in possession of land measuring 23 kanal 5 marlas as share-holder comprised in Khasra No.15//5 (8-0), 14//1 (8-0) 10//21-min (7-5) Khewat No.126, khatoni No.209 as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 situated in village Naya Gaon, Tehsikl Uklana Mandi, District Hisdar He laid challenge to sale deed No.1316 dated 24.2004 executed in favour of defendant No.3 on the basis of forged power of attorney dated 16.2004 with consequential relief of injunction. Occasion to file suit arose only when the petitioner came to know that the GPA dated 16.2004 was misused by defendant No.1 ie his brother, who while acting as agent of the plaintiff sold the land to defendant No.3 (Sultan Singh). The petitioner made a complaint to the police. An FIR was registered (in this respect) in which the Sub RegistrarS.K. Tyagi gave a Certificate (Ex.P.8) to the effect that it did not bear his signatures on the GPA. In order to prove the aforesaid case, he was examined as PW4 but he came out with different version by saying that he had appended signatures on the blank papers. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayabhai Chhagan Bhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujrat, (1964) AIR SC 1563, to contend that the prayer in the application has wrongly been declined. It is contended that the trial Court while passing the impugned order ought to have confined only to the contents of the application.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that it is not the case where witness of the petitioner-plaintiff has turned hostile at the stage of cross examination. Had it been so, there would have been some force in the arguments of the petitioner much less giving cause to file application. In the absence of the same, the application has rightly been dismissed.