Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

90.After analysing everything which is on record, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has used the ruse of having lost documents and registration of NCR; Ex. PW­5/1 (containing 5 pages) as Deuce Ex Machina for extricating himself from unexplainable and difficult situations.

91.From the contents of hand­written complaint dated 01/08/2013 on the basis of which NCR no. 1373/2013 was lodged by the police contains the fact that the plaintiff had come to movie hall and when the plaintiff was in a queue to buy the ticket the plaintiff misplaced his bag which contained property documents. Here the date 01/08/2013 is to be kept in mind. Ms Shilpi was living separately from the plaintiff since June 2011 the mutual divorce agreement between the plaintiff and Ms Shilpi was executed on 26/10/2012; Ex. PW­1/26 and the plaintiff lost property documents of the suit property on 01/08/2013 and the circumstances in which the plaintiff lost the documents as per his complaint dated 01/08/2013 to the police also needs to be kept in mind along with the fact that in Ex PW­5/1 (colly) the plaintiff did not mention the details of any of the documents related to the suit property which was misplaced by the plaintiff.

92.The plaintiff was examined by the Court under Order 10 of CPC on ASUTOSH SAINI v. SUDHA SARIN 12/10/2021. The same is not treated as evidence by the Court but is being used by the Court only to understand the deposition of the witnesses which are on record. The Court put the query to the plaintiff as to what was the documents which were lost by the plaintiff in August 2013. The plaintiff stated that the plaintiff had lost all the documents pertaining to the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff could find that the plaintiff did not lose the original GPA executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and the rent agreement executed in the year 2013. The plaintiff further stated that the plaintiff had taken the documents to Pitampura to show those documents to a buyer whose name the plaintiff did not remember. (During the course of argument, the counsel for the defendant had stated before the Court that with respect to purchase and sale of any property the witnesses/purchaser or the seller remembers everything). Suffice to say that when the Court examined the plaintiff on 12/10/2021 the plaintiff did not say before the Court that the plaintiff had lost the document/misplaced the bag containing the property documents in a queue for taking the ticket for a movie in a cinema hall.

93.With respect to alleged loss of the previous chain of property documents of the suit property on 09/08/2018 the plaintiff in his cross­examination deposed, "I do not know whether the defendant is in possession of the previous chain of document in original. It is wrong to suggest that I have made a complaint which is Ex PW­1/9, is a false document. The previous chain was lost in Pitampura, Delhi. It was lost on 1 st of August but I do not remember the year. I said, I do not know the exact date. I went to met (sic) my friend Salish Kumar at Pitampura. On that day, I met Satish Kumar before losing of previous chain of document. At that time, I was in the search of buyer of suit property and I was carrying ASUTOSH SAINI v. SUDHA SARIN the previous chain of documents but I do not know the name of the buyer". What the plaintiff deposed in his cross­examination with respect to the loss of the documents is completely different from the facts as given by the plaintiff in his complaint dated 01/08/2013 on the basis of which NCR; Ex.PW­5/1 (colly) was registered.

94.The counsel for the defendant in the cross­examination of the plaintiff with respect to the loss of the document did not ask the question if at the time when the plaintiff had lost the previous chain of documents, the plaintiff was in search of a buyer of the suit property and for that purpose the plaintiff was carrying the previous chain of documents then how come in the bag which contained previous chain of documents did not contain the documents which were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff? The prospective buyer would have been interested in knowing as to the title of the plaintiff qua the suit property. The entire story of loss of documents by the plaintiff on 01/08/2013 and registration of NCR; Ex. PW­5/1 (colly) is hocus­pocus.