LRS. OF MAHAVEER PRASAD Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 26.08.2006 and the order dt. 09.08.2007 and therefore, preferred this writ petition because of the reason that issues involved in two applications, which were decided by the trial Court by two separate orders is inter -related. The petitioner's -defendant's application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court after observing that the defendant in his written statement did not give reference of the rent deed dt. 01.06.1986 and the plaintiff in his reply to the application stated that the rent deed in question was never executed. The petitioner's -defendant's application filed under Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dt. 09.08.2007, which substantially in the light of the decision given dt. 26.08.2006.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent -plaintiff vehemently submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below and the trial Court considered the facts of the case, which cannot be denied nor the defendant can deny the same. It is admitted case that there is no reference of the rent deed in the written statement and the document in question is fabricated and concocted document. The said document - rent deed has not been executed nor it contains the signature of the plaintiff.