IMPORTANT POINT
Production of Documents – Admission and Denial of Documents-Directions issued that No suit should proceed further before framing of the issues in case either of the parties to the lis does not place on record original documents on which reliance has been placed

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2017 whereby the application moved under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC read with Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for appearance before the Court has been disposed of.

2. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the pending suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell, an application dated 19.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) invoking the provisions of Order 10 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 and Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was moved by making specific averment in para 2 with regard to filing of vakalatnama by one Shri. Narender Singla on behalf of defendant Nos.1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 to 27 and 29 (hereinafter called as “first set of defendants”) and another vakalatnama for defendant Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 (hereinafter called as “second set of defendants”) but the Court below on the basis of the statement of Mr. N.K. Singla disposed of the application whereas the statement was only confined to the first set of defendants.

3. Mr. Alok Jain, assisted by Mr. S.C. Mhane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below has not followed the provisions of Rule 1 and 2 of Order 10 CPC. There has not been adherence to the aforementioned provisions which would not only help the Court but also to the parties at variance for proper adjudication of the lis. The purpose of admission and denial is to cut down the litigation on the facts and documents, which are not in dispute, enabling the parties to prove the same in accordance with law, thus, the order is not sustainable in the yes of law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book as well as the impugned order. It would be apt to refer para 2 and 3 of the application and the impugned order, which are as under:-

“2. That in the proceeding dated 19.05.2014 appearance of Shri Narender Singla on behalf of defendant Nos.1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 to 27 and 29 and a fresh vakalantnama was filed on 20.3.2015 on behalf of defendant Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. The said vakalatnamas are on the record. 3. That from the perusal of the said vakalatnama filed by Shri N.K. Singla it is apparently clear that the vakalatnamas do not bear signatures and thumb impressions of the defendants and that the same are forged and fabricated signatures. From the bare perusal of the signatures and thumb impressions on the vakalatnama and on the served summons on the defendants it is clear that the same do not tally with each other and are not signed by the same person who has signed and thumb marked the vakalatnama. The plaintiff has come to know about this fact on inspection of the file.”

Order dated 22.02.2017

Present: Sh. S.C. Mahna, Advocate for plaintiff. Sh. N.K. Singla, Advocate for defendants No.1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 to 27 and 29.

Defendant No.28 ex parte vide order dated 19.5.2015.

In response to the application under Order 10 Rule 1, the defendant from whom Sh. N.K. Singla had given vakalatnama, appeared in person and submitted that they had engaged Sh. N.K. Singla, Advocate. In view of the submission made by the defendant No.1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 to 27 and 29, application under Order 10 Rule 1 is disposed of. Further perusal of the case file indicates that application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is pending adjudication and so far reply to the application is not filed by the plaintiff. Now, case stands adjourned to 19.4.2017 for filing reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

NDOH : 19.4.2017 sd/- Purpose : Reply (Tarun Singal) Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Faridabad (UID No.HR0229) February 22, 2017”

5. On going through para No.2 of the application, it is crystal clear that the trial Court had only confined the contents of the application to the vakalatnama filed by Mr. N.K. Singla vis-a-vis first set of defendants and not on account of second set of defendants. The Legislature in its wisdom had made the provisions in the Code