AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.