Bansa Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh vs Ram Chandra S/o Shri Bheem Chand

The present writ petition has been preferred against the

order dated 25.02.2017, passed by learned Special Judge,

N.D.P.S. Cases Court, Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.121/2016,

whereby the application preferred by the petitioner(defendant

No.1) under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151

C.P.C. has been rejected.

Briefly, the facts in the matter are that respondent(plaintiff)

Ram Chandra has preferred a suit for specific performance against

the petitioner Bansa Singh for performing his part of the contract

in view of the agreement dated 11.06.2003 entered into between

both the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such

agreement has ever entered into between the petitioner Bansa

Singh and the respondent (plaintiff) Ram Chandra and the plaintiff

Ram Chandra has forged certain papers which are signed by the

petitioner and thereafter has inscribed the subject agreement in

question. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

there is a business transaction between the plaintiff Ram Chandra

and the petitioner Bansa Singh as the petitioner being a farmer

brings his crops to the grain market and is using the ''Adhat'' (agio)

of the plaintiff for the purpose of selling his agricultural produce.

During this transaction certain signatures are made on the blank

papers by the petitioner which are being misused by the plaintiff

by preparing a forged and fabricated document to sell the subject

piece of land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed

written statement in the suit and the matter is pending

consideration for the plaintiff''s evidence. The main thrust of

argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that by

calling for the Bahi Khata(ledger) of the plaintiff, it will be proved

that there was a business transaction between the plaintiff and the

petitioner and during the transaction of sell the agricultural

produce from the ''Adhat'' of the plaintiff, the petitioner has

misused the blank signed papers of the petitioner by preparing the

subject agreement to sell of land in question. By calling those

documents, it will be proved that the petitioner has been cheated

by the plaintiff who has forged the documents by preparation of

agreement to sell.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

In my considered view when the written statement is very

clear and specific to the point that there was some business

transactions between the parties and the same has come on

record also in the evidence of the plaintiff, then calling for the Bahi

Khata (ledger) has rightly been refused by learned trial Court,

more particularly when the respondent(plaintiff) in reply to this

application has very categorically submitted that no such

document is in his possession and he has further submitted that

there are no document with respect to the sale transaction of

''Adhat'' on credit basis. Further it has specifically been denied by

the plaintiff that there is no amount due with the plaintiff of the

petitioner.

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that the order dated 25.02.2017

passed by learned trial Court is just and proper and, therefore,

needs no interference of this Court.

The writ petition therefore fails and the same is hereby

dismissed.