FATEH RAJ Vs. SH. NAR SINGH BHAGWAN MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Add. Munsiff-cum-Judl. Magistrate No. 1, Pali dated July 28, 1993 by which he has held the existence of the original document of the photostat copy Ex.-1. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for possession against the defendant-Petitioner Fateh Raj. On 11.8.88, an application was moved by the plaintiff under Sec. 66, Evidence Act and Sec. 151, Civil Procedure Code in the said suit stating that the defendant Fateh Raj had executed a document in favour of the plaintiff-trustees making certain admissions in respect of the suit property and it should be got filed in the Court as it is very material document. It has also been averred in it that its photostat copy Ex.-1 has been found 5 days back only in the old papers of the deceased trustee Bal Krishan. Its reply was filed by the defendant-petitioner seriously opposing it and averring that he never executed such a document, the photostat copy Ex.-1 is a fabricated document and no explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in filing it. The trial Court took the evidence of the parties about the existence of the original document and by its impugned order has held that such a document exists.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that the disputed document exists despite the fact that no such prayer was made in the said application dated 11.8.88. He further contends that according to the averments made in the application itself the document was not acted upon and no notice under Sec. 66, Evidence Act was given by the plaintiff to the defendant.