- (1.) Receipt dated 12.5.1987 was placed on record and finds duly entered in list of documents (Annexure P-1) appended with the plaint under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. Hoshiar Singh (PW2) examined on 29.9.2010 is the attesting witness of the said receipt (Ex.P4) wherein he had proved the said receipt. When on 26.10.2010, the said attesting witness Hoshiar Singh was recalled for cross-examination, it appeared in his testimony that original receipt was not there and only a photocopy was found on record. Examination-in-chief (Annexure P-2) and cross-examination (Annexure P-3) of Hoshiar Singh (PW2) are appended as below: Examination-in-chief "I tender into evidence my affidavit which Ex.PW2/A and it may be read as part of my deposition. I have seen the original writing dated 12.5.1987 and I identify my signatures on it. The writing is Mark-P4. (Word mark is written after cutting Ex.). Xxx by Sh. N.D. Diwan, Advocate. Deferred." Cross-Examination "I know Ram Dass as he is my co-villager. Dalip Singh and Baljit Singh and also my co-village and as I know them. It is correct that Mark-P4 is not original document. I do not know from whom signatures are Sub Registrar were obtained. It is wrong to suggest that no earnest money was paid in my presence or in the presence of other. It is wrong to suggest that the receipt dated 12.5.1987 has been fabricated. I do not know if the receipt dated 12.5.1987 is attested on 12.5.1989. Kartar Singh scribed and signed in my presence on the photocopy of the receipt. I know the possession of the plaintiff because plaintiff belongs to a village. It is wrong to suggest that Dalip Singh and Baljit Singh did not sign in my presence. It is also incorrect that the document was not read over to me and the other witness. It is also incorrect that I had put my signatures afterwards. It is wrong to suggest that I have given a false affidavit and deposing falsely. I do not know about the alleged agreement. It is wrong to suggest that being co-villager of the plaintiff I have given false evidence. I am not a summoned witness."
(2.) It is un-understandable as to how the original receipt which was testified to be so on 29.9.2010 by attesting witness Hoshiar Singh turned into a photocopy on the next date when his cross-examination was effected on 26.10.2010.
(3.) It remains a fact that existence of this document is not disputed. Even during the course of arguments on a matter of application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC before the lower court, counsel for the respondents-defendants had made reference to this receipt. The lower court vide order dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure P-6) noticed the contention of respondents-defendants qua this receipt, to the following effect: "The counsel for the defendants submitted during arguments that a patent sight of this writing shows that it is a fabricated document prepared by taking advantage of the signatures of the defendants on a blank paper. He pointed out that the signatures of defendants No.1 and 2 do not appear on the revenue stamps. Similarly, the writing has been written in such a manner so as to complete it at the signatures of the defendants.";