Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Zulfikhar Khan - Petitioner
Versus
Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan & Ors. -Respondents
CM (M) 352 OF 2019
Decided On : 11-03-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pranav Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M.A. Ansari, Advocate
The production of original documents by the respondent, lack of objection during exhibit marking of copies, and failure of the petitioner to show relevance for sending documents for examination by an expert examiner influenced the Court's decision to dismiss the petition.
Headnote:
Section 45 of the Evidence Act - Application for production of original documents - Court dismisses application - Petitioner sought to prove the genuineness of documents through forensic examination or production of originals - Respondent produced original documents before Trial Court - Petitioner's reliefs not satisfied - No objection raised during exhibit marking of copies - No relevance shown for sending documents for examination by expert examiner - Petitioner's alternative prayer satisfied by production of original documents - No infirmity in Trial Court's view - Petition dismissed
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenges the dismissal of their application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, seeking production of original documents to prove the genuineness of the documents, contending that they were forged and fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The Court finds that the respondent had produced the original documents as sought for in the application filed by the petitioner, satisfying the reliefs prayed by the petitioner. The Court also notes that no objection was raised during the exhibit marking of copies and that the petitioner failed to show any relevance for sending the documents for examination by an expert examiner. The alternative prayer in the application is also found to be satisfied by the production of original documents before the Trial Court. The Court concludes that there is no merit in the petition and dismisses it.
Issues: Impugning the dismissal of application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, seeking production of original documents to prove their genuineness, and the satisfaction of the reliefs prayed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision is influenced by the respondent's production of original documents, the lack of objection during exhibit marking of copies, the petitioner's failure to show relevance for sending documents for examination by an expert examiner, and the satisfaction of the alternative prayer in the application by the production of original documents before the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The petition is found to have no merit and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CM(M) 352/2019 & CM APPL.9321/2019 (stay)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 10.07.2018, whereby, application of the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner/defendant in the suit had filed the subject application inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to produce the original GPA, Agreement to Sell and receipts all dated 06.12.1978.
3. It was contended that the documents were forged and fabricated and genuineness of the thumb impression of the testator Late Sh. Roopan on the said exhibits was sought to be proved.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the application of the petitioner, either the documents should have been sent for forensic examination or the originals should have been produced before the Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the original documents were duly produced before the Trial Court at the time of the recording of the evidence of the respondent and the copies of the said documents, after comparison, were exhibited and marked as Exhibit PW1/6 to PW1/8 and no objection was taken by the petitioner with regard to the proof of the said documents and exhibit marking of the copies and there is even no cross-examination or suggestion during cross examination that the originals have not been produced.
6. In view of the fact that the respondent had produced the original documents as sought for in the application filed by the petitioner, the reliefs prayed by the petitioner in the application stand satisfied.
7. Even otherwise, said documents have been exhibited without any objection as to their mode of proof and further, petitioner has not shown the relevance of sending these documents for examination by an expert examiner inasmuch as late Sh. Roopan was the predecessor in interest of the father of the respondent, who claims to have purchased the property from Sh. Roopan. Petitioner, whose father was the brother of the father of the respondent, also does not claim that there were any other title documents in favour of the petitioner or his father other than the documents produced by the respondents. The contention is that the father of the respondent had taken away all the original title documents and he is not in possession of any title documents.
8. Even otherwise the alternative prayer in the application, filed by the petitioner, stands satisfied by production of original documents before the Trial Court. No further relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petitioner has also not been able to show any infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court by the impugned order.
9. Further, it is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that evidence of the parties is already concluded and the matter is now at the stage of final arguments.
10. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
