Jaspal Singh vs Smt. Ranjit Kaur And Another on 17 February, 2009

Civil Revision No.4357 of 2008                            -1-

                                       ****


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                          Civil Revision No.4357 of 2008
                          Date of decision: 17.2.2009


Jaspal Singh
                                                          ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

Smt. Ranjit Kaur and another                              ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.

Present:     Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Ms. Manisha Sahota, Advocate for
             Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate the respondents

S.D.ANAND, J.

On an averment that he is owner in possession of the land in

suit, the plaintiff-petitioner applied for the grant of a declaration that the

impugned power of attorney dated 3.4.2000 and the sale deeds dated

29.6.2000 and 29.3.2001 which had allegedly been executed on the basis

of above mentioned power of attorney, are forged, fabricated and not

binding upon him. Consequential relief of injunction and restraint of

alienation was also sought.

In the course of the trial, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an

application to obtain the leave of the Court to aver the following facts:-

i) That he had lodged an FIR in the context against the

defendants/respondents.

ii) That bail plea of the defendants/respondents had been

rejected by the Court.

Iii) A challan in pursuance of the aforementioned FIR had
Civil Revision No.4357 of 2008 -2-

****

been filed against the defendants/respondents.

The learned Trial Court noticed that the averments mentioned

at items no.1 and 2 had indeed been taken up in the rejoinder filed by the

plaintiff-petitioner at the trial. Qua the 3rd item, the Court observed that it

was not required to be pleaded.

There is plethora of law on the point that nature of evidence to

be produced and is not to be pleaded. The plaintiff-petitioner has already

challenged the impugned general power of attorney and sale deeds

executed on the basis thereof as a forged affair. In the rejoinder itself, he

had mentioned the lodging of FIR by him against the

defendants/respondents and also the fact that bail application filed by them

had been rejected. The evidence, by means of which an allegation of

forgery is to be proved by the party averring, is not to be pleaded. The

impugned order is valid in character. The reasoning, noticed in support

thereof, deserves affirmation.

The petition is held to be complete bereft of merit and is

ordered to be dismissed.

February 17, 2009                                  (S.D.Anand)
Pka                                                   Judge