Delhi District Court
Mr. Jamil vs Mohd. Iqbal on 27 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TANVI KHURANA, CIVIL JUDGE01 (South)
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
In the Matter of:
Civil Suit No.865/14
Mr. Jamil
S/o Mohd. Sharif
R/o T14, Islam Colony,
Ward no.6, Mehrauli,
New Delhi110030. .......Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Mohd. Iqbal
S/o Late Sh. Ramzant
R/o T60 (A &B),
Khasra no. 1113, Ward no. 6,
Islam Colony, Mehrauli
New Delhi110030.
2. Salim
S/o Mohd. Iqbal
R/o T60 (A & B),
Khasra no. 1113, Ward No.6,
Islam Colony, Mehrauli
New Delhi110030.
3. Raghuraj Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Jai Pal Singh
R/o 882, B2, Ward No.6,
Mehrauli, New Delhi110030. ......Defendants
Suit No Vs. 865/14
Jamil Vs. Mohd. Iqbal & Ors Page 1 of 6
Suit for Permanent Injunction.
Re: Application under Section 45 Indian Evidence Act read with under
Order XXVI Rule 10 A and Section 151 CPC filed by the
applicant/defendant.
Present: Respondent/plaintiff in person.
None for applicant/defendant.
ORDER:
By this order, the court shall proceed to decide the application filed by the applicant/defendant under Section 45 Indian Evidence Act, Order XXVI Rule 10 A read with Section 151 CPC seeking that the documents to be sent to Forensic Laboratory with the directions to find out the year of printing the stamp papers in Government Press, Nasik which have been used in preparing these documents and further to furnish a report qua the signatures of Peerzada Sayed Islamuddin on these documents to see whether the signature are genuine or not.
2. Through this application, applicant has mentioned that the plaintiff had filed certain documents on 25.03.2015 in response to application filed by the defendants under Order XI Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The documents are Agreement to Sell dated 06.12.1983 executed by Peerzada Sayed Islamuddin in favour of the Sarif Saifi that is the father of the plaintiff, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Will and Receipt showing the payment of Rs. 10,800/. It is alleged that on bare perusal of these documents, they appear to be forged and fabricated as the stamp of the stamp vendor is not visible at all. It is also mentioned that the code of the Suit No Vs. 865/14 Jamil Vs. Mohd. Iqbal & Ors Page 2 of 6 stamp papers has been erased in order to hide the age of these documents. It is also contended that the signatures of Mr. Islamuddin on these documents are not original and have been scanned from some other documents. It is therefore, prayed that the documents be sent to CFSL so that the authenticity and genuineness of the documents as well as signatures can be ascertained by the scientific method. It is also sought that the date, month and year of printing these documents be also ascertained through scientific method only. It is mentioned that there is no legal impediment in allowing the present application for which the expenses would be borne by the defendants.
3. On notice, reply was filed by the respondent/plaintiff wherein the application was contended to be not maintainable. It is submitted that the Order XXVI Rule 10 A CPC prescribed the circumstances wherein the scientific opinion can be taken and similarly Section 45 Indian Evidence Act also clarifies the circumstances. It was submitted that in the present matter stage is yet to arrive whether the plaintiff will prove the documents and therefore, the stage is not appropriate for the defendant to move the application under Section 45 or Order XXVI Rule 10 A. It was also mentioned that the applicant do not have the locus standi to file the present application. On merits, it was submitted that the application is pre mature and has been filed only to delay the process. It was also mentioned that the ascertainment of the age of the documents can not be done by the CFSL and it is not the matter where the admitted signatures have to be compared with the disputed signatures. It was also mentioned that the expert evidence does not substitute decision of the court which would be the final authority to decide the issue. Hence, it was Suit No Vs. 865/14 Jamil Vs. Mohd. Iqbal & Ors Page 3 of 6 prayed that the application be dismissed.
4. Ld. counsel for applicant argued that it is essential that the age of the documents be ascertained so that it can be determined whether the documents are genuine or not. Similarly, it was argued that it appears that the signatures of the executant have been scanned from some documents and have been imposed on the alleged agreement to sell etc. It was therefore, pleaded that the documents be sent to CFSL for determination of age and genuineness.
5. Per contra, Ld. counsel for respondent argued that process of age determination is not available with CFSL and further even for the signatures, it is not the case that the signatures do not belong to the executant rather, it is submitted that they have been scanned and there is no process to determine the same. He also argued that the application is premature as the stage for proving the documents is yet to arrive and the plaintiff should be given the opportunity to prove the documents first.
6. Submissions heard. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously.
7. It can be observed that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff or causing hindrance, obstructing or interference in the use and occupation of the suit property bearing no. T14, Islam Colony, Ward No.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi ad measuring around 180 Sq. Yards. The plaintiff has asserted himself to the absolute owner in possession of the property which he claims to have been purchased by his father from Peerzada Sayed Islamuddin in 1983 vide General Suit No Vs. 865/14 Jamil Vs. Mohd. Iqbal & Ors Page 4 of 6 Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Will all dated 06.12.1983. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants wants to grab his property and therefore the present suit has been filed.
8. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the documents of the plaintiff were forged and fabricated and denied the sanctity of the documents in eyes of law, as the documents are not registered. The locus of the plaintiff was also questioned rather it was contended that the defendant no.1 is the owner in possession of the property and plaintiff was alleged to be the trespasser in the small portion. It was also contended that according to the plaintiff, the property was situated in Khasra No. 1145 and the old Khasra number was 166 whereas as per the revenue record, Khasra no. 1145 does not correspond to the old Khasra no. 166 and Khasra no. 1145 has already been notified in the official gazette and has been declared to be wakf property which can not be sold or transfered or alienated by any person. It was also contended that the number of the property has been mentioned to be incorrect as it is not T14 (as averred by the plaintiff) rather it is T60, Islam Colony, Ward no.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi comprising under Khasra no. 113 in revenue estate of village Mehrauli.
9. The applicant had called for the documents under Order XI Rule 14 CPC from the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore filed the original agreement to sell, GPA, Affidavit, Will and Receipt. On bare perusal of the documents the documents appears to be old documents and the stamp of the notary public are present. Further to the naked eye the signatures do not seem to be scanned prima facie. Judicial notice can be Suit No Vs. 865/14 Jamil Vs. Mohd. Iqbal & Ors Page 5 of 6 taken of the fact that determination of age of the ink is still not available with CFSL. It is also correct that the plaintiff should be given a opportunity to prove the documents. It is also worth observing that the determination of age of paper is also not a fool proof method as it is dependant on many conditions such as preservation of the papers.
10. When the technology is not available to determine the age of the stamp etc and ink, it would be futile to refer the matter to experts for their opinion upon the age of the print on the documents. Similarly, as the signatures itself does not appear to be scanned, no fruitful purpose would be achieved in sending the document unnecessarily for ascertaining whether the signatures are scanned or not. The applicant has not prayed for comparison of signatures from admitted documents rather it is plea of the applicant that the signatures have been scanned from somewhere else. This contention is not tenable.
11. In light of the above discussion, this court does not find any merit in the present application at this stage, hence, the application is dismissed.
(TANVI KHURANA) Civil Judge01 (South) Saket Courts/New Delhi 27.11.2015 Note: All the six pages of this order have been checked and signed.
(TANVI KHURANA) Civil Judge01 (South) Saket Courts/New Delhi 27.11.2015 Suit No Vs. 865/14 Jamil Vs. Mohd. Iqbal & Ors Page 6 of 6