Order VII Rule 14 CPC and Evidence Act Sections 65(a), 45 cannot be used belatedly to fill evidentiary lacunae; requires due diligence, notice, authentication; no supervisory interference absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P dated 13.08.2024, whereby application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC read with Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act and another application under Order 45 of the Indian Evidence Act have been order to be dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P. with the prayer that Waryam Singh, predecessor-in-interest, of the parties had died on 01.09.1998. He was succeeded by his widow, defendant No.1 Smt. Preeto Devi, six sons, plaintiff and defendants no. 2 to 5 and two daughters defendants No. 6 and 7. The parties succeeded to the estate of Waryam Singh as the class one heirs. The parties are in joint possession of the suit land. It was alleged that defendants No.1 to 3 in conspiracy with each other and at the back of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, got mutation No. 212 attested in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of the alleged forged Will dated 02.02.1997. The deceased Waryam Singh had not executed any Will in favour of defendant No.1. The alleged Will is wrong, illegal, null and void and an outcome of fraud, undue influence and importunity. Defendant No.1 on 27.08.2010 executed a fictitious sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 regarding the suit land and the said sale deed is void, ab initio. Therefore, decree for declaration was prayed to the effect that the suit land is in joint ownership and possession of the parties and the Will dated 02.02.1997 executed by late Sh. Waryam Singh is null and void and further sale deed executed by defendant No.1 dated 27.08.2010 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 is void, ab initio.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendant No.1 filed comprehensive written statement denying all the averments as made in the plaint and it was averred that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands since the mutation No. 212 was got entered by plaintiff No.1 himself and further the same has been got attested by the plaintiff No.2 before the revenue authorities. It was submitted in the written statement that the deceased Waryam Singh had great love and affection with defendant No.1 and out of his free will and consent he executed a Will in her favour. It was further submitted that plaintiff never looked after the defendants, therefore, she being an exclusive owner in possession of the suit property has every right to enjoy the property in the manner of her choice.

4. Defendants No.2 and 3 had filed separate written statement and contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. They submitted that they are the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, therefore, plaintiffs have no cause of action against them. They stated that mutation No.212 has been got entered by plaintiff No.1 himself and further the same was got attested by plaintiff No.2 before the revenue authorities. It will be pertinent to mention here that the suit was filed on 04.09.2010 by the plaintiff b