- (1.) The petitioner-defendant has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby, the application filed by the respondent- plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. has been allowed.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 21.09.2005 and permanent injunction. Before issues could be settled, the respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. seeking to place on record the agreement dated 20.12.2005 and a copy of the reply to the notice dated 23.03.2012. Vide order impugned dated 01.05.2019, the learned trial Court has allowed the application to the extent of agreement dated 20.12.2005 only (although, in the order, agreement is stated to be dated 23.11.2005; but, both the learned counsels are at consensus that it is a typographical error and the agreement taken on record is dated 20.12.2005).
(3.) Assailing the order impugned, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint was filed way back on 23.04.2012 containing no reference of the agreement dated 20.12.2005 nor, any explanation was furnished by the respondent in the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. for not filing this document alongwith the plaint or thereafter for a period of about six years. He contended that in spite of specific objection in her written statement as to the suit for specific performance based on the agreement dated 21.09.2005, being barred by limitation as well as prayer for rejection of the plaint being barred by limitation in her application filed on 23.10.2013 under Order 7 Rule 11(3) C.P.C., the respondent did not choose to file the agreement dated 20.12.2005 immediately thereafter. He contended that in these circumstances, the application filed seeking leave of the Court to place the agreement dated 20.12.2005 on record was nothing; but, is an attempt to circumvent the limitation. He further contended that while allowing the application, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the agreement was forged and could not have been taken on record.;