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