SAJANTI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. BASANTI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 35 of 2007, are aggrieved of order dated 20.09.2016 by which their application to call for the register from the office of the Registrar, Hazaribagh for verifying genuineness of the sale deed dated 04.03.1937 has been declined.

(2.) At the outset it needs to be recorded that this application was filed by the plaintiffs when both parties had closed their evidence. The defendants have filed written statement on 01.10.2007 and additional written statement on 11.10.2007, in which they have staked their claim over the suit schedule properties through registered Kewala dated 04.03.1937. Now the plaintiffs contend that this document is a forged one and therefore, to verify its genuineness register from the office of the Registrar, Hazaribagh may be called for.

(3.) Under Order VII Rule 14 CPC at the time of presentation of the plaint the plaintiff is required to produce the document on which his claim is founded and Order XIII Rule 1 mandates that before issues in the suit are settled the parties shall produce the original documents. Order XVIII Rule 1 provides that the plaintiff shall have right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, and under Rule 2 the plaintiff is required to produce his evidence. Same is the procedure which shall be followed when the defendant's turn comes. It is well-settled that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading evidence, oral as well as documentary. For the same reason, it would be the duty of the defendant to prove admissibility and genuineness of the Kewala and also to prove the contents of Kewal dated 04.03.1937. In law, the plaintiff is not required to "prove" that Kewala deed dated 04.03.1937 tendered in evidence by the defendants is not genunine. Moreover, admissibility of a document, its genuineness and whether contents of a document has been proved or not, are the matters which can be raised at the final hearings in the suit. Apparently, application dated 02.07.2016 filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable, it only reflects their anxiety. In the above facts, the trial judge has rightly declined to entertain the application dated 02.07.2016.