High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 09 P&H CK 0260

Baljit Singh vs Tarlok Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.N. Jindal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 3537 of 2012 (O and M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 342 words

A.N. Jindal, J.—The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure P/5) passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by him directing PW-3 Balbir Singh, Document Writer to produce the original register pertaining to entry No. 178 dated 6.12.1996. The petitioner- plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property while claiming himself to be owner of the property bearing Khasra No. 352(0-1) situated at village Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff while stating that they had purchased this property on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 6.12.1996.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner actually wants to challenge the sale deed on the ground that the same is forged document as in one of the copy issued to him on 20.7.2012, the amount is shown as Rs. 10,000/- and earnest money is shown to have been given as Rs. 3500/-, whereas in the other copy issued by Balbir Singh Document Writer indicates that the sale was for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was paid as an earnest money, therefore, the court should have sit over these documents in order to examine the validity of the agreement. Thus, it was obligatory on the part of the court to make probe qua these two documents.

3.

In any case, without going deep into the merits of the case, it appears that the court has not passed the speaking order while taking the aforesaid two documents and the original entry from the petition writer''s register into consideration. As such, interference by this court is required.

4.

Before parting with the order it is clarified that if the photo copy of the entry is found to be fictitious, then the court may proceed to take criminal action against the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to pass a speaking order while taking into account the aforesaid documents.