Bihar v. Shiv Narayan Yadav S
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17897 of 2012 ====================================================== Ramjee Gope S/O Late Ramchandra Gope R/O Mohalla- Manik Chand Talab, Police Station- Gardanibagh, Post Office- G.P.O., Patna, Town And District- Patna, State-Bihar .... Defendant .... Petitioner Versus Shiv Narayan Yadav S/O Late Ram Bhaju Rai R/O Mohalla- Paharpur, P.O.- G.P.O., Patna, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Town & District-Patna, State- Bihar
Legal Reasoning
.... Plaintiff.... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s :
Legal Reasoning
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 5 19-11-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed in Title Suit No. 367 of 1995 by which the petitions filed by the petitioner on 16.06.2012 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) as well as the petition dated 25.06.2012 under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code, have been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is Patna High Court CWJC No.17897 of 2012 (5) dt.19-11-2013 2/5 the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent and the relief sought is for declaring the sale deed executed by the respondent- plaintiff in his favour as null and void holding it to be fraudulent. In view of the aforesaid, since the original sale deed in favour of the petitioner was stolen, for which an F.I.R. was lodged with the local police station, a petition was filed under Section 151 of the Code for getting the original signature in the records of the Registry Office at Kolkata relating to the sale deed dated 04.05.1995 to be verified with the signature of the respondent by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad/New Delhi/Chandigarh. Subsequently, an application was also filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code for summoning the Registrar of the Registration Office at Kolkata to produce the connected documents like register etc. before the Court so that the same could be compared with the signature of the plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that a sale deed executed by the respondent-plaintiff in his favour is sought to be disowned, the only way for the petitioner to prove its authenticity is by getting the signature verified from the records available at Kolkata with that of signature of the petitioner, either in the present proceeding or fresh signature to be taken by the authorities for such verification. It is further submitted that the original records Patna High Court CWJC No.17897 of 2012 (5) dt.19-11-2013 3/5 are also required to be verified from the Registry Office at Kolkata to confirm the authenticity of the registered sale deed dated 04.05.1995 executed by the respondent- plaintiff in favour of the petitioner-defendant. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that though the claim of the petitioner is that the original sale deed which was in his possession was stolen in January, 1996, no such prayer was made till 2012 and that too in view of the fact that evidence was closed and even written statements were submitted by the parties which clearly prove that the petitioner is trying last ditch dilatory tactics to somehow delay disposal of the suit. It is submitted that the Court has rightly held that the petitions were filed belatedly and the order impugned is sound. However, he submits that he is not opposed to the prayer of the petitioner of getting the signature of the plaintiff on the records available in the Registry Office at Kolkata to be verified with regard to its authenticity with the only rider that the Court may fix a reasonable time period by which the suit be finally concluded. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a supplementary affidavit in which he has brought on record a petition filed on 22.10.2013 before the Court praying for the certified copy of the sale deed Patna High Court CWJC No.17897 of 2012 (5) dt.19-11-2013 4/5 which has been stolen to be taken on record and marked as exhibit. He submits that he has instructions from the client to take the stand that no further application shall be filed by him in the suit below. In that view of the matter, he also submits that the Court may fix a reasonable timeframe for conclusion of the suit and that the intention of the petitioner is not to delay but rather to ensure that justice is done. In view of the common ground taken by the parties with regard to the suit being disposed off expeditiously and also the fact that the respondent-plaintiff himself is ready to get his signature available on the official records in the Registry Office at Kolkata verified with regard to its genuineness, this Court allows the application. The order impugned dated 18.07.2012 is set aside. The petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code on 16.06.2012 as well as the petition filed on 25.06.2012 under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code stand allowed. The petition dated 22.10.2013 filed by the petitioner before the Court below also stands allowed. The Court will now ensure that whatever exercise is to be undertaken pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the same is done latest within a period of four months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, final arguments shall be advanced by the parties within the next four Patna High Court CWJC No.17897 of 2012 (5) dt.19-11-2013 5/5 weeks. The Court shall then pass final judgment within the next four weeks. The Court is directed to strictly adhere to the timeframe indicated above, which has been voluntarily and mutually agreed to by both the parties, and any lack of co- operation by any of the party shall be taken as a breach of undertaking liable to action and shall also not preclude the Court from proceeding in the matter ex parte against the party which does not cooperate. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anjani/-