Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sant Ram vs Satbir Alias Sarjeet And Ors on 1 July, 2014

                CR No.4171 of 2014                                                      -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                                                         CR No.4171 of 2014
                                                         Date of decision: July 1st , 2014


                Sant Ram

                                                                                      ...Petitioner
                                                Versus

                Satbir alias Sarjeet and ors.
                                                                                   ...Respondents


                CORAM:                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN
                                      PARSOON


                Present:              Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                                      ****

                Dr.Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral)

1. Invoking supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner - defendant No.5 impugning order of 27.5.2014 (Annexure P-6) of the lower Court seeks copy of FIR No.176 dated 15.4.2014 to be put in evidence to buttress his claim that agreement to sell (Ex.P2) is ante dated, notwithstanding denial in this regard made by the respondent - plaintiff.

2. It has rightly been observed by the lower Court that the dispute whether the agreement is ante-dated or not is to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the matter after appreciating and evaluating the evidence led by the parties. But at the same time no good reasons are put-forth for dissuading the petitioner - defendant No.5 to place on record copy of the FIR in his evidence particularly when this FIR came to existence much later i.e. on 15.4.2014 when evidence of the petitioner - defendant No.5 had been closed on 24.2.2014. Consistent plea of the petitioner - defendant No.5 is that agreement to sell (Ex.P2) which forms foundation of the suit, has been ante-dated.

3. This FIR has been got registered by the petitioner

-defendant No.5 under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, interalia, against the respondent - plaintiff with the allegations that agreement to sell was forged and ante-dated.

4. Since only one opportunity has been sought by the petitioner to produce copy of the FIR in evidence and existence of the FIR is not disputed and no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent who can be compensated by payment of costs and without issuing notice to the respondent in order to avoid delay, setting aside the impugned order dated 27.5.2014 (Annexure P6), the petition is allowed, subject to payment of cost of `5,000/- to be paid to the respondent - plaintiff by petitioner -defendant No.5.

5. However, it is made clear that putting of copy of FIR on record in evidence by petitioner - defendant No.5 ipso facto would not be proof of the averments made therein as the FIR is still under investigations. Probative value of the FIR put in evidence additionally by petitioner - defendant No.5 in pursuance of this order would be subject matter of appreciation before the trial Court at the time of passing of the judgment on evaluation of evidence.

6. Consequently, the petition is disposed of in the above terms.

                July 1st , 2014                           (Dr.Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
                Brij                                              Judge




Mohan Brij
2014.07.02 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh