Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1547 (PNJ)

Narinder Singh v. Paramjit Singh and

2012-10-31

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - The Revision is preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the rejection of his plea to send the disputed agreement for sale to Security Printing Press, Nasik to verify when those stamp papers were printed and offered to the public for sale. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent praying for specific performance of agreement for sale. The defendant-Revision petitioner herein denied the execution of the said document. In other words the 1st defendant- Revision petitioner took up a plea that the said document was forged and fabricated one. 2. The trial court took up the matter for trial and examined the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff. One Raj Kumar the stamp vendor was also examined as PW4 on the side of the plaintiff. 3. The trial Court observed that the stamp vendor himself was examined during the course of trial and, therefore, the necessity to send the stamp papers used for scribing the agreement for sale to Security Printing Press, Nasik for opinion did not arise. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would submit that the moment the agreement for sale was produced during the course of trial, the defendant has come forward with the application to send the stamp papers to Security Printing Press, Nasik for opinion. Referring to the evidence of PW4 Raj Kumar, he would submit that Raj Kumar could not assertively say that the stamp papers were purchased by the plaintiff from him. He cited a decision of this court in Joginder Singh versus Balwinder Kaur and others 1996 (2) R.R.R 232 and submitted that this Court in a similar situation permitted the party concerned to send the document to Security Printing Press, Nasik. Therefore, it is submitted that the defendant may not be in a position to establish the fabrication of the document unless the stamp papers are sent to the Security Printing Press, Nasik for opinion. 5. I find that there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner. 6. Therefore, it is submitted that the defendant may not be in a position to establish the fabrication of the document unless the stamp papers are sent to the Security Printing Press, Nasik for opinion. 5. I find that there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner. 6. Raj Kumar PW4 has categorically deposed before the trial Court that it was he who sold the stamp papers to the plaintiff but of course in the cross examination he would depose when it was brought to the notice that the stamp papers did not bear the serial number or his signature, that he could not assertively say whether he sold those stamp papers to the plaintiff. 7. Out of three stamp papers, one stamp paper bears the serial number as well as the signature of the vendor Raj Kumar. The other two stamp papers did not contain the serial number or the signature of PW4. It may be due to inadvertence on the part of Raj Kumar PW4, he would not have put his signature and assigned the serial number to the stamp papers. 8. The fact remains that the plaintiff had issued pre suit notice as on 23.3.2004 itself, bringing to the notice of the defendant his failure to perform his part of the contract. It appears that the defendant taking advantage of the absence of the signature of stamp vendor and the serial number on two stamp papers has come forward with the present application just to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court has also noted the fact that the defendant was convicted in connection with the very same transaction by the competent criminal Court. It is to be noted that the defendant had not whispered anything about the forgery of the signature in the present application seeking permission of the trial court to send the stamp papers to Security Printing Press, Nasik. 9. The decision in Joginder Singh’s case (supra) did not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The reason being that in the above case, the defendant who faced the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale introduced yet another agreement as though the said agreement was prior in point of time. 9. The decision in Joginder Singh’s case (supra) did not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The reason being that in the above case, the defendant who faced the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale introduced yet another agreement as though the said agreement was prior in point of time. Under such circumstances, this Court felt that such a document will have to be sent to the Security Printing Press, Nasik at the instance of the plaintiff who laid the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale seeking a report from the Security Printing Press, Nasik as to the date of issuance of such a stamp paper. 10. The facts and circumstances emerged in the present case are found to be totally different. It is not a case where two agreements were projected, one by the plaintiff and another one by the defendant. It is also not a case where an agreement alleged to have been entered into by the defendant with the 3rd party long prior to the subject agreement for sale was projected by the defendant. 11. In view of the above, I find that the ratio laid down by this court in Joginder Singh’s case (supra) would have no application to the facts of this case. 12. The agreement was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 12.12.2003. On 23.3.2004 itself a notice was issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. No purpose would be served by sending the stamp papers to Nasik Press. 13. In view of the above, I find that there was no necessity for sending the stamp papers to the Security Printing Press, Nasik, for opinion. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the 1st defendant. No interference is called for. 14. Therefore, the Revision stands dismissed. No order as to costs.