Honble ACHARYA, J.–This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to assail the correctness, legality, or propriety of the impugned order, if necessity so arises, by raising appropriate ground in appeal, and in the event of any such ground is raised, that objection will be decided by the Court objectively and independently on its own merits.

(2). Brief facts as mentioned in the writ petition are as follows:

(3). The plaintiff - respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the defendant - petitioner on 28.03.2001 for declaration to the effect that Will dated 24.8.89 said to have been executed by late Hardayal Singh in favour of the petitioner has been got executed by the defendant - petitioner by practicing deception and fraud with the executant and hence is an illegal document which was void and had no effect on the rights of the plaintiff - respondent in relation to the property which was the subject matter of Will and the petitioner gets no legal rights on the basis of the same in relation to the property of late Hardayal Singh. The plaintiff has also claimed the consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant - petitioner to the effect that he be restrained from transferring or in any way alienating the property in question on the basis of the said Will.

(4). The appellant - petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and submitted his written statement and denied the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint. The appellant - petitioner has also raised certain legal objections regarding court fee and jurisdiction. The Trial Court framed issues on 23.11.2001. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and was closed on 06.05.2003.

(5). Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff from time to time up to 06.05.2003. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendant on 09.07.2003, but the evidence could not be recorded for one reason or the other on that day. The next date of hearing was fixed for the evidence of the defendant on 6.8.2003 and then on 09.09.2003.

(6). The defendant moved an application on 8.9.2003 under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) CPC with a prayer to allow him to produce certain documents on record which were not in his possession at the time of the filing of the written statement, but were necessary to prove the facts stated in the Will executed by late Hardayal Singh in favour of the petitioner, which were the original sale deeds executed by Wazan Ali in favour of Gurdev Singh, Deep Singh and Man Singh on 16.6.82, 22.6.82 and 30.6.82 respectively for 17 bighas of land. It was also prayed in the said application that out of the 5 sale deeds executed by the members of one family Gurnam Kaur d/o late Hardayal Singh, Man Singh and Deep Singh all the three sons of Smt. Sukhpal Kaur another daughter of late Hardayal Singh. Two sale deeds had already been filed in court along with the written statement but the said three sale deeds could not be filed in original at that time though they were entered in the list of reliance. The Trial Court vide the impugned order allowed to take on record the documents mentioned in the application of the defendant dated 09.09.2003 but refused to take on record the documents mentioned in the application dated 08.09.2003 which were the original three sale deeds executed by Wazan Ali in favour of Gurdev Singh s/o Hardayal Singh, Man Singh and Deep Singh, which were not traceable to the defendant at the time of submission of written statement. Since these three documents were the registered sale deeds of the property of Wazan Ali which was purchased by late Hardayal Singh in the name of his son Gurdev Singh and his maternal grand sons namely Deep Singh and Man Singh, which were highly relevant to prove the factum of the land of the said sale deeds standing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document