Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1392 (RAJ)

Sushil Agarwal v. Balveer Kumar Jain

2010-08-05

SANGEET LODHA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.3.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge, (JD) No. 6, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 73/1995, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., stands rejected. 2. In nutshell, the relevant facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on the strength of an agreement to sell dated 15.1.1988 alleged to have been executed in his favour by the respondent/defendants No. 1 in respect of the plot No. 44A situated at Shanti Priya Colony, Jodhpur. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint that the petitioner/plaintiff power of attorney Chandra Shekhar Gehlot in collusion with the defendants No. 1 Balveer Kumar, defendant No. 3 Sajjan Raj has executed and jot registered a fake sale deed dated 2.12.1990 in favour of the defendant No. 2. 3. The suit is being contested by the defendants by filing written statements thereto. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues and the matter is presently posted for plaintiffs evidence. 4. At this stage, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 14 C.P.C. for taking the report of Handwriting Expert on record in respect of the signature of the plaintiff on the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by him in favour of Chandra Shekhar Gehlot. 5. The application has been rejected by the Trial Court holding that the suit is filed only for the specific performance of the contract and the genuineness of the power of attorney has not been disputed by the plaintiff. The Court observed that in his statement before the Court, the plaintiff has admitted his signature on the power of attorney Ex. A-3 and therefore, the alleged report of the Handwriting Expert is absolutely not relevant for determination of the issues involved in the suit. Accordingly, the application has been rejected by the Court below by the order impugned. 6. A bare perusal of the plaint reveals that the petitioner/plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the sale deed dated 2.12.1990 executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 is a fake document. Accordingly, the application has been rejected by the Court below by the order impugned. 6. A bare perusal of the plaint reveals that the petitioner/plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the sale deed dated 2.12.1990 executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 is a fake document. However, there is absolutely no allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff has never executed the power of attorney in question in favour of Shri Chandra Shekhar Gehlot. Moreover, in his statement before the Court, the petitioner/plaintiff has admitted his signature on the power of attorney in unequivocal terms. In this view of the matter, the question of permitting the petitioner to produce the report of the Handwriting Expert regarding his signature on the power of attorney does not arise. 7. In considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******