IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9709/2009. Kistoori Bai and Others. VERSUS The Addl.Civil Judge (S.D.), Baran and Others. 12.08.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Nitin Jain, for the petitioners. *****
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners who are the plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 04.07.2009 by which the application submitted by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. on 24.01.2009 was rejected.
The brief facts giving rise to the application for amendment of the plaint are that the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of patta against the defendants. .The defendants, on the other hand, filed written statement alleging that with respect of the property in dispute, the father of the plaintiffs had executed an agreement which is Annexure-1 on record on 17.12.1983 and agreed to sell the property in dispute to the defendants and had received part consideration in respect of the same. On coming to know about the aforesaid plea, the plaintiffs filed a criminal complaint before the court of ACJM and the document in question was also sent for investigation to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur where the report dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure-2) with respect to the same was received by the learned trial court and thereafter, on coming to know about the said report, the application for amendment was submitted.
Learned counsel submitted that the amendment is necessitated on account of the aforesaid subsequent events which have taken place after the pleadings of the parties have been completed and the plaintiffs may be allowed to raise the aforesaid plea with regard to the forging of signatures of their father on the document agreement dated 17.12.1983 which has been set up by the defendants as the said document being a fabricated piece of evidence.
The learned trial court while dismissing the application vide order dated 04.07.2009 took into consideration the aforesaid fact and has clearly said that the plea with regard to the document agreement dated 17.12.1983 being a fabricated piece of evidence and void has already been raised and by means of the present application the plaintiffs are only seeking to produce the evidence by way of pleadings. The learned trial court was of the opinion that the pleadings are required to be contain only the statement of fact and not evidence.
The learned trial court has also taken care, while dismissing the application submitted by the petitioners, to observe as follows:-
…..???????: ???????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ???????? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??…..
In view of the above observation made by the learned trial court, needless to say that the plaintiffs- petitioners would be entitled to lead evidence in respect of the aforesaid plea with regard to the document agreement dated 17.12.1983 being a fabricated piece of evidence and also that the signatures on the same alleged to be those of the father of the plaintiffs being forged on the basis of the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory.
Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(DALIP SINGH),J.
Solanki DS, Jr.P.A