Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.4.2007 whereby his application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC to place on record certified copies of the report of handwriting expert and his statement recorded in another suit between the same parties, in relation to the same property was rejected by the trial court. He has also challenged the order dated 18.7.2007 whereby his application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC seeking review of the earlier order was rejected.
(2.) I have heard Shri Arun Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) Shri Arun Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit has been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.11.84 and rent note dated 20.11.1984 primarily on the ground that the plaintiff never executed any such sale deed, nor did he sign any such rent note. His signatures on these two documents are forged. Even otherwise such documents, especially the sale deed, was not admissible in evidence because no stamp duty has been paid thereupon, nor the same has been got registered under the Indian Registration Act. Such document, there#ore, cannot convey any title. It was argued that the necessity to file the suit arose when the defendants tried to obtain lease deed of the disputed property from the Jaipur Development Authority. The plaintiff even filed first information report on 14.4.98 against the defendants on allegation of forgery for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. However, the police submitted final report on 7.12.1998 and thereafter the petitioner submitted a protest petition on 12.5.99 which was accepted by the trial court and cognizance taken. The defendants are presently facing trial. An application was filed by the plaintiff for taking on record the report of the handwriting expert and his statement recorded in another trial in the suit which was filed by none other than the defendant Smt. Ram Lalli and Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma against the present petitioner as plaintiff. Controversy involved in the earlier suit was the same whether the sale deed dated 20.11.1984 and the rent note dated 20.11.1984 are forged or not. Shri Arun Bhandari while inviting attention to the written statement filed by the plaintiff in the earlier suit argued that a specific objection was raised in the written statement that the aforesaid document i.e. rent note dated 20.11.1984 was forged. Merely because no issue was framed on that respect in that trial did not in any manner dilute the plea. It was argued that since the handwriting expert whose report and statement as Ex.A-43, A-44 and A-45 and Ex.3 in the earlier suit are sought to be placed on record, has already expired, such documents in the shape of certified copies can always be taken in evidence by the Court in the present case by recourse to Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act which permit evidence recorded in another trial to be taken on record subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Shri Arun Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the judgments of Sitaji & Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 601 , Kadiam Paparao v. Siddireddy Satyanarayana & Ors., AIR 1983 A.P. 257 , Chittoor Co-op. Town Bank Ltd. v. T. Krishnaiah Chetty & Anr., AIR 1983 A.P. 259 , Krishnayya Surya Rao Bahadur Garu & Anr. v. Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Surya Rao, Bahadur Garu, Rajah of Pittampur, AIR 1933 PC 202 , Karri Venkata Narasayyamma & Anr. v. Pentapati Venkata Rattamma & Anr., AIR 1957 (AP) 378 , Sarvabhotla Thotapalle Chendikamba : v. Kanala Indrakanti Viswanathamayya & Ors., AIR 1939 (Madras) 446 , Shiv Charan Lal through L.Rs. v. Lakhan Lal & Ors., (2007) WLC (Raj.) UC 540 . Shri Arun Bhandari, argued that certified copies of the documents sought to be placed on record were applied for by the petitioner on 9.2.07 and were obtained on 26.3.2007 from Registry of this Court from records of the Civil First Appeal No. 207/03. He argued that all documents are genuine documents obtained from Court records and since certified copies were received late, they could not be filed earlier. Mere production of these documents would not in any manner cause any prejudice to the defendants because they can always be compensated by payment of reasonable amount as cost. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.;