JASMEL SINGH Vs. SANDEEP SINGH GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 20/1/2025 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter as 'trial court') in Civil Suit No.13/2016 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order XV Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter as 'CPC'). The instant petition has been filed seeking following relief:

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit (Annex.1) for specific performance of agreement dtd. 20/1/2015 and perpetual injunction against the petitioner (defendant) before the learned trial court. The petitioner also filed written his statement. The learned trial court framed issues on 2/2/2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an amended written statement on 26/3/2019 (Annex.2) with the leave of the learned trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application (Annex.3) under Order XVI Rule 1 (3) of the CPC to summon Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra, as witness, stating therein that his name could not be included in the list of witnesses as the fact of initiation of proceedings by him against the petitioner regarding the dishonour of cheque has come on record by way of amended written statement (Annex.2) subsequent to the framing of issues on 2/2/2017 and his presence is necessary as he is a witness to the agreement dtd. 20/1/2015 and his testimony is relevant for the just disposal of the suit. However, the learned trial court vide order dtd. 20/1/2025 (Annex.5) rejected the application (Annex.3). Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a victim of fraud and ill-will of the respondent. He submits that petitioner's friend Mr. Manoj Kumar took a loan of Rs.4,00,000.00 from Mr. Krishna Guneja for which the petitioner agreed to be a guarantor and furnished signed blank stamp papers; two blank cheques and other signed blank papers to Mr. Krishna Guneja. He submits that Mr. Krishna Guneja in collusion with the respondent misused these documents and forged the agreement to sale dtd. 20/1/2015. He submits that the petitioner neither knows the respondent nor have never met him before. He submits that Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra, who is a witness to the agreement to sale dtd. 20/1/2015, has initiated proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner by misusing the cheque, which was furnished by the petitoner to Mr. Krishna Guneja for the purpose of guarantee. He, thus, submits that Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra is a very important and necessary witness and his testimony would bring forth the truthful story of the genesis of the entire suit.