JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. Heard on admission.

2. The second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 23.07.2008 passed by Eighth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/2008 (Bajrang Lohiya vs. Ramawtaar and Another) reversing the judgment and decree passed by Seventh Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 145A/2006 on 01.08.2007, which has been filed by the plaintiff for declaring document dated 30.01.1989 as forged, null and void document.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 145A/2006 which was filed for declaring the document forged.

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments, are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit mainly contending that the State Government has constituted Bilaspur Development Authority, who used to develop residential and commercial areas after dividing into various plots as per various schemes floated by them. As per the scheme, Bilaspur Development Authority has floated the scheme to develop plot area about 118 acre land of commercial purpose situated between south direction of Vinoba Nagar, Ring Road No. 2 and Railway Line. Rate of plot was fixed at Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. by Bilaspur Development Authority. As per the rules, at the time of registration of plot, Rs. 2000/- per plot has been deposited. The plaintiff applied for two plots and deposited Rs. 4000/- through cheque bearing No. 709137. Registration No. 123 dated 06.09.1985 was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff vide letter dated 13.08.1987 sought information from Chief Executive Officer, Bilaspur Development Authority regarding balance amount which has to be deposited by him for allotment of plot, but no information was provided to him in this regard. Thereafter, he made various attempts to obtain the above-stated information, but he could not succeed.

5. The State Government has merged Bilaspur Development Authority with Municipal Corporation Bilaspur/defendant No. 1, as such, all the assets and liabilities lies with defendant No. 1. The plaintiff wrote a letter dated 18.08.2003 requesting to Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur for registration of the plots allotted to the plaintiff, wherein it has been informed by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff vide letter dated 02.09.2003 that the plot which has been allotted to the plaintiff, has been allotted to defendant No. 2, as such, no plot can be allotted to the plaintiff. In the said letter, letter dated 30.01.1989 addressed to Estate Officer, Bilaspur communicated to the plaintiff was also enclosed, wherein, it has been stated that defendant No. 2 has committed fraud by putting false signature of the plaintiff, accordingly, the plot has been allotted to defendant No. 2 whereas the plaintiff has not put any signature on the said letter.

6. The plaintiff has sought information from defendant No. 1 vide letter dated 15.03.2004 from defendant No. 2 with regard to allotment of plot to defendant No. 2, but neither defendant No. 2 has given any information in this regard nor defendant No. 1 has taken any action against defendant No. 2, therefore, the plaintiff has sent legal notice to defendant No. 1 under Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act. Even after expiring the period prescribed under the Municipal Corporation Act, no action has been taken, which has necessitated the plaintiff to file suit. On the basis of such pleading, the plaintiff has prayed that the document dated 30.01.1989 is forged one. The action of Bilaspur Development Authority on the basis of forged document dated 03.05.1989 prepared by defendant No. 2, be declared as null and void. The amount which was credited in favour of defendant No. 2 be also delivered as void ab initio.

7. Defendant No. 1 has filed its written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint contending that in