KULDEEP SINGH BASAN Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, two Civil Revision Petitions bearing No. 3046 and 3047 of 1998 directed against the two identical orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, dated 25.5.1998 can conveniently be disposed of together. The learned Civil Judge, Phagwara, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The relevant facts are that Kuldeep Singh petitioner had filed a suit for declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the land in question and the power of attorney bearing No. 613 dated 27.9.1991 is forged and fabricated document. It was forged by Nirmal Singh for and on behalf of Smt. Dhan Kaur. The subsequent sale deed executed by Nirmal Singh as attorney of Smt. Dhan Kaur is, therefore, null and void. Besides that, permanent injunction has also been claimed.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, petitioner submitted an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code"). It was asserted that Nirmal Singh had forged and fabricated the power of attorney. Smt. Dhan Kaur had not executed such a power of attorney. Such power of attorney is in possession of the respondents. The power of attorney did not bear the thumb-impression of Smt. Dhan Kaur. The petitioner wanted the permission to get the thumb-impressions of Smt. Dhan Kaur on the alleged power of attorney compared with the admitted thumb-impressions on her passport.