BHAGIRATH Vs. HARDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to the Revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 26.6.1989 and dated 5.1.1991. in the court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, which is suit No. 66/92. The respondents had lodged FIRs on 6.9.1991 bearing No. 203/91 and the FIR No. 270/91 dated 7.11.1991. The FIRs were lodged by Hardyal and Khayaliram respectively alleging that the present petitioner plaintiff had forged Agreement to Sale by purchasing the stamps and getting the thumb impression of Hardyal on the blank stamps. The original documents have already been produced in the present suit alongwith the plaint.

(2.) THEREAFTER , on an application moved by the Investigating Officer of the Police Station, Tibi, the court has ordered for handing over the original documents to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigating into alleged incidents mentioned in the two FIRs. It is this order dated 15.10.1992 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, which in subject matter of this Revision.

(3.) HAVING carefully considered the contention raised before me and perused the order under Revision, I am of the opinion, that the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are well founded. Firstly, the original documents which are foundation of the suit before the civil court and were produced along with the plaint, could not have been delivered out side the custody of the court, without keeping a certified copy of the same on record. That is the usual procedure when the original documents are returned to the party concerned or are delivered to any other agency. It may be noticed that the documents were not being sent to the investigating agency as part of record transmitted from one official custody to another official custody.