Jaibir vs Brij Bhan

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 19943-CII of 2012

The application is allowed and Annexures R-1 to R-5 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case

Plaintiff-Jaibir has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.04.2012 Annexure P-12 passed by learned trial Court thereby disposing of as infructuous application Annexure P-10 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 10 Rule 2(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC (in short, CPC). Plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell allegedly executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement denied the execution of the agreement and pleaded that his signatures had been obtained by plaintiff on blank papers.

In application Annexure P-10, the plaintiff prayed that the defendant be called upon to appear and admit or deny the execution of documents i.e. agreement, receipt, general power of attorney, Will, security bond and affidavit allegedly executed by the defendant.

The defendant in his reply Annexure P-11 reiterated the stand taken in the written statement regarding the documents and also pleaded that the application under Order 10 Rule 2(2) CPC is not maintainable after framing of issues and recording of part evidence of the plaintiff.

In the impugned order, the trial Court has observed that during the course of arguments, counsel for defendant-respondent admitted the aforesaid documents Exhibits P-1 to P-6. In view thereof, the trial Court disposed of the application as infructuous although it was also observed that the application was not maintainable at this stage after framing of issues. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

On enquiry by the Court as to why this revision petition has been filed when the documents in question were admitted by counsel for the defendant-respondent in the trial Court, counsel for the petitioner plaintiff pointed out that in fact counsel for defendant had denied the aforesaid documents. However, this submission merits only part acceptance. Perusal of certified photostat copies of the documents in question reveals that counsel for defendant made endorsements on the documents to the effect that signatures of the defendant on the documents were admitted but contents thereof were denied. Observation of the trial Court in the impugned order that the documents have been admitted by counsel for the defendant need clarification to this extent. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the instant revision petition is disposed of.