CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION v. Arjun Nathu Bhoir & Ors.

..... Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha a/w. Mr. Patric Fernandes i/b. Dave & Girish & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Ganesh S. Koli for Respondent No.1. Ms. Aruna G. Koli for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ..... CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : JUNE 21, 2012. P.C.: The Petitioner was Defendant No.1 in the original suit. He applied under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for trying the issue of limitation as a jurisdictional issue. Evidence was led. The Trial Court has decided that the suit is not barred by limitation because the knowledge of the Plaintiff was not seen. The Civil Revision Application filed in this Court came to be rejected on 23rd March, 2012. A Review Petition is filed on completely different evidence showing the knowledge of the Plaintiff and contending that the suit was barred by limitation.

It is the case of the Review Petitioner that after the rejection of the Civil Revision Application, he embarked upon further enquiry in 2 rpc-12-12 the revenue office. He obtained a copy of the wordi notice under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 stated to have been signed by the Plaintiff No.1 on 1st August, 1997. The Petitioner claims that that document was not known to the Petitioner when the first application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed. It has come to the knowledge of the Petitioner later. It may be considered in the evidence to show that the suit is barred by limitation.

The document shows inter-alia a signature of Plaintiff No.1. The Petitioner has to prove that that was the Plaintiff's signature. The Petitioner has shown two other signatures of the Plaintiffs on pages 502 and 503 of the compilation in this petition. These are applications stated to have been made by the Plaintiff No.1 in the lower Court and verified on 20th August, 2009. The signature on the wordi notice of 1998 and the Application of 2009 stated to be of the Plaintiff No.1 are indeed similar. The document is obtained by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1) after the Civil Revision Application was disposed of. It is a public document. It shows certain blanks filled in. It is signed by another signatory also. It has transpired that that signatory is Defendant No.1 in the suit.

The suit is filed challenging a power of attorney stated to 3 rpc-12-12 have been executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 claimed to be the constituted attorney of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has admittedly signed the same wordi notice. That has been signed by him only pursuant to the power of attorney and as the agent of the Plaintiff.

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent in this Petition rightly questions as to why Plaintiff No.1 would ever sign the wordi notice if it is also signed by his constituted attorney, Defendant No.1. It is indeed a profound question. It exposes Defendant No.1. It shows that a copy of a document of a public authority has been sought to be used upon fabrication and forgery in the suit to somehow show that the suit was barred by limitation. It is a question of fact otherwise to be seen. It, however, cannot be relied upon at this late stage to show that the suit is barred by limitation. It has been concluded by the Trial Court that it is not. It has been concluded by this Court that the Trial Court was not in error. Hence, there is no dispute that the suit is not barred by limitation. However, this document may be relied upon by both the parties to show the acts of both the parties on the date of the execution of the wordi notice in the suit. The Review Petition is dismissed as a dishonest application.

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)