Usha Rani vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 4 November, 2009

C.R. No. 6246 of 2009                                                   [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                CHANDIGARH.

                                 C.R. No. 6246 of 2009

                                 Date of Decision: November 4, 2009



Usha Rani

                                       .....Petitioner

             Vs.

Vijay Kumar and others

                                       .....Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                          -.-

Present:-    Ms. J.J. Kaur, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                   -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

An application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner to produce a

copy of the registered sale deed dated October 28, 1996 has been dismissed

vide impugned order dated September 17, 2009 solely on the ground that

the case has been pending since seven years and that the sale deed which is

sought to be produced, though was within the knowledge of the plaintiff-

petitioner but they remained silent for a period of more than 7 years as such

they are not entitled to produce/prove the sale deed.

C.R. No. 6246 of 2009 [2]

After hearing counsel for the plaintiff, in order to determine the

relevance/ importance of the document sought to be produced, counsel was

directed to make available a copy of the sale deed which is sought to be

produced. By virtue of the sale deed, all the nine legal heirs of Kishan

Chand had executed the sale deed pertaining to a house constructed on 13

marlas of land after the death of Kishan Chand. A perusal of the plaint

indicates that the plaintiffs are widow and daughters of Kishan Chand

claiming separate possession by partition of 1/9th share each in the two

properties mentioned in the heading of the plaint and left by Kishan Chand.

The sons of Kishan Chand, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 want to defeat the

right of inheritance of the plaintiffs on the basis of a Will alleged to have

been executed by Kishan Chand in their favour. In para 9 of the plaint, the

plaintiffs have claimed that the Will put-forth by the defendant- respondents

is forged and fabricated document and that the defendants are estopped from

propounding any such Will in view of the proceedings for succession

certificate, a compromise and the sale deed dated October 28, 1996 by

virtue of which 1/9th share of each heir was acknowledged and 13 marlas of

land earlier belonging to Kishan Chand was sold. The provisions of Order

18 Rule 17-A CPC have though been omitted by amendment of Civil

Procedure Code of 2002 but the present suit was instituted in the year 2001

as such the applicability of the amended provisions of CPC in the year 2002

is debatable point in the present case but the amendment will certainly have

a prospective effect and will not defeat the rights of the parties in cases filed

prior to the said amendment. Irrespective of the applicability of provisions
C.R. No. 6246 of 2009 [3]

of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC, the document i.e. registered sale deed dated

October 28, 1996 seems to be a document relevant for just decision of the

case especially when the said document is specifically referred to in the

plaint. No doubt, the plaintiffs have been negligent in placing the said

document on record or producing the same but they can be penalized for

said negligence by imposing costs upon them. Even otherwise, the sons of

Kishan Chand also seem to have signed the sale deed dated October 28,

1996. Apparently, the said document being a registered document signed

by both the parties can be produced on the record, if not specifically denied

by the signatories. The trial Court seems to have, without realizing the

importance and relevance of the document disallowed the same to be

proved- produced on the record. The document seems to be necessary for

the fair adjudication of the matter.

The revision petition is allowed in limine and the order dated

September 17, 2009 is hereby set aside with a direction to the trial Court

that plaintiffs will be permitted to place on record a certified copy of the

sale deed dated October 28, 1996. The said document may be put to the

defendant- signatories. In case of admission of signatures of the defendants

who are signatories and are alive, the documents will be exhibited and in

case of denial, it will be proved as per the provisions of law. The plaintiff-

petitioner, however, will be liable to pay the costs of Rs.10000/- to the

defendants for production of the sale deed dated October 28, 1996 on the

record. It is made clear that in case the cost is not paid, this petition will be

deemed to have been dismissed.

 C.R. No. 6246 of 2009                                          [4]




           Order dasti on payment of usual charges.


November 4, 2009                                (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                           JUDGE