Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 213 (HP)

VIRENDRA KUMAR v. BHAG CHAND

2002-08-02

A.K.GOEL

body2002
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who were defendants before the trial Court and are respondents in the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the learned appellate Court below. 2. When this matter came up on 19.7.2002 following order was passed:— "Heard learned Counsel. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable for 2.8.2002 in the petition as well as in CMP No. 133 of 2002. Dasti notice will be given in both to the learned Counsel for getting the respondent served. Steps to be taken during the course of the day today. Subject to any order that may be passed after hearing the opposite side after it has filed reply to the main petition as well as in CMP I No. 133 of 2002, in the interim, it is ordered that District Judge, Kullu will proceed to hear arguments on the date fixed by him. He shall not pronounce the judgment till further orders. Meanwhile Registry is directed to requisition the original record of [ copying agency, Kullu relating to entry made in CD Register at Serial No. 9242 dated 15.11.2000 i.e. application, receipt book, if any, as wall as the register wherein the aforesaid application was entered and copy delivered. CM.P. No. 134 of 2002 Heard. Disposed of with the observation that translation be filed on or before the next date." 3. As per Annexure P-5 attached with this petition, civil suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed on 14.11.2000 by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Manali. Respondent submitted application for supply of copy judgment and decree vide CD. No. 9242 on 15.11.2000. Record requisitioned from the Copying Agency, Kullu as well as Report Annexure P-5 submitted by the Incharge, Copying Branch (Assistant Commissioner) to Deputy Commissioner, Kullu shows that this copy was attested on 19.12.2001 and it was supplied on the same day to the respondent-plaintiff. 4. Why necessity arose for calling the report from the Copying Agency also needs to be explained here. After the appeal was filed, an application was filed by the present petitioners before the learned District Judge, Kullu on the allegations that since the appeal is beyond limitation, as such there is no properly constituted appeal and some forgery was also alleged to have been committed by the Copying Agent. On this application, following order was passed on 20.6.2002:— "20.6.2002. On this application, following order was passed on 20.6.2002:— "20.6.2002. Present : S/Sh. A.L. Kapoor, B.B. Sharma and M.K. Pandit Counsel for the appellant. Sh. B.C. Thakur Counsel for the respondent. Reply to application filed by the appellant. Respondent has filed application that the appeal is beyond limitation on ground that appeal against decree dated 14.11.2000 of learned Sub Judge 1st Class Manali is not within limitation. Plea raised is that application for copy of judgment and decree was applied by the appellant on 15.11.2000 as entered at Sr. No. 9242 of the CD. Register, copy was prepared on 19.12.2001 by copying agent and delivered on the same day to the appellant. Resultantly claimed that appeal instituted on 26.12.2001 is hopelessly time barred. In fact by way of such application the respondent has alleged commission of forgery by the copying agent. As perusal of the certified copy of judgment dated 14.11.2000 reveals that copy was applied on 15.11.2000, copy was prepared on 19.12.2001 and also supplied to the appellant on 19.12.2001. 2. Whether any forgery qua preparing, issue of copy of judgment and decree was committed by copying agent, let the matter be referred to Incharge Copying Agency Kullu. Application consequently stands disposed of. For arguments to come up on 6.7.2002. Sd/- (T.N. Vaidya) Distt. Judge, Kullu". 5. It was thereafter that report (Annexure P-5) was submitted by the Copying Agent. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the petitioners by referring to Annexure P-5 attached with this petition, stated that so far allegation of his clients that there is any forgery etc. is concerned, this allegation does not survive in view of the report of the Copying Agent (Annexure P-5) dated 5.7,2002 relied upon by the petitioners. Thus this plea comes to an end. 7. His next contention was that in case the date of preparation of the copies is taken, then the appeal is barred. He also stated that if it is to be taken the date of attestation, then again appeal as filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the appellate Court below is within time. 8. So far plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that appeal is barred by time from the date of preparation is concerned, it has been raised simply to be rejected for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 9. 8. So far plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that appeal is barred by time from the date of preparation is concerned, it has been raised simply to be rejected for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 9. In case a prepared copy is made available without attestation to a party, it will not give any authenticity as envisaged under the law of evidence. Therefore, mere preparation by itself is of no consequence. Authenticity is added to it after the same is attested by a person authorised in law to do so. From contemporaneous official record of the copying agency, I am satisfied that the copy was attested on 19.12.2001, when it got authenticity after it was duly attested as per original, under Section 76 of the Evidence Act. 10. Another reason to take this view is that in the application itself or in the register produced by the copying agency, Kullu, no probable date for supply of copy is given and there being nothing on record to suggest that the copy was attested after preparation on a date prior to 19.12.2001, is also an additional ground to reject the present petition. In this behalf, Copying Register CD. Ill from 26.11.2001 has also been sent by the copying agency. In this register, entries are made regarding supply of copies datewise. So far application in question bearing No. 9242 is concerned, copy was supplied on 19.12.2001. Similar is the position in receipt register of the relevant period. 11. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, there is no question of any forgery much less appeal being barred by time as was alleged by the petitioners-defendants. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. Records sent by the copying agency be returned forthwith. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Kullu for being placed on the file of this case. CM.P. No. 133 of 2002 12. No order in view of the order passed in the main matter. Application stands disposed of.