C.R. No.5230 of 2010 (O&M) ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5230 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: February 11, 2011. Dilawar Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS M/s Pawan Kumar Vikram Kumar. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest * * * PRESENT Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. , Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Counsel for both the parties submit that as the record of the case has been burnt, the photocopies of the record supplied are authenticated and that they have got no objection in . . . 1 C.R. No.5230 of 2010 (O&M) case the record is reconstructed on the basis of the material produced. The record is reconstructed on the basis of the material supplied. The petition has been taken up for adjudication with the consent of the parties. The petitioner is a defendant in a case of recovery of money borrowed by the petitioner, filed by the plaintiff-respondent M/s Pawan Kumar Vikram Kumar, Commission Agent, Abohar. The defendant-petitioner in his written statement has taken up a plea that the plaintiff-respondent firm is not maintaining proper account books and that the plaintiff-respondent has not accounted for the amounts of the agricultural produce sold by the defendant-petitioner and his father as well as brother through the agency of the plaintiff- respondent and of sale of land measuring 22 kanals having market value of ` 10 lacs in favour of persons of plaintiff-respondent as per the asking of the plaintiff-respondent by way of execution of sale deed. It is also pleaded that father of the petitioner had sold agricultural produce vide Form-J dated 9.11.1998, 1.12.1998, 4.1.1999 and 11.1.1999, through the Commission Agency of the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff-respondent issued forms through its sister concern M/s Hans Raj Anil Kumar. Similarly, the petitioner has also obtained copies of Form-J dated 04.05.2002 and 17.05.2002, from the Market Committee, Abohar as the plaintiff- respondent refused to supply the same. The specific plea taken by the defendant-petitioner in the written statement is that the plaintiff- . . . 2 C.R. No.5230 of 2010 (O&M) respondent did not pay any sale consideration to the defendant- petitioner against the sale deed despite repeated requests and demands of the defendant-petitioner and never rendered accounts to the defendant-petitioner. The entry dated 03.08.2004 for ` 1,25,000/- in the name of the defendant-petitioner is forged and fabricated. Vide impugned order, the application filed by the defendant-petitioner to summon the record of Firm M/s Hans Raj Anil Kumar and the record pertaining to the source of sale consideration of the sale deeds of the land purchased by Alka Rani and Radhika Rani as the defendant-petitioner wanted to establish that in view of the amount due to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of the wives of the partners of the sister concern of the plaintiff-respondent firm without getting any consideration, the trial Court has partly allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to produce the entries of Rokar Bahi from the date of opening of the account of defendant and licence from the Market Committee of the plaintiff-respondent firm. The application for production of other record was dismissed. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner has submitted that the record of Firm M/s Hans Raj Anil Kumar, a sister concern of the plaintiff-respondent firm is necessary besides the record pertaining to the course of sale consideration of the sale deed executed in favour of Alka Rani and Radha Rani by the defendant- petitioner and his family members. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the . . . 3 C.R. No.5230 of 2010 (O&M) petition saying that the application regarding record of M/s Hans Raj Anil Kumar is vague and the application has rightly been dismssed. After hearing the counsel for the defendant- petitioner and the plaintiff-respondent as well as going through the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the defendant-petitioner has got a right to establish pleas taken by him in his pleadings by producing cogent available evidence. So far as the plea that the plaintiff-respondent firm is the sister concern of M/s Hans Raj Anil Kumar, is concerned, the same can be established only by summoning the record of M/s Hans Raj Anil Kumar. In case the defendant-petitioner wants to produce any record of said firm, he will have to specify the particular date and the entry which can be produced by the alleged sister concern of the plaintiff-respondent firm namely M/s Hans Raj Ahil Kumar. So far as the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for summoning the record pertaining to the source of income of land purchased by Alka Rani and Radhika Rani is concerned, the application has rightly been dismissed. It is always open to the defendant-petitioner to produce any evidence regarding the plea that Alka Rani and Radhika Rani had purchased the property without any consideration in lieu of money which was due to their relations who happens to be the proprietors/partners of the sister concern of the plaintiff-respondent. In view of above circumstances, this petition is dismissed. So far as the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for summoning the record pertaining to source of income of Alka Rani . . . 4 C.R. No.5230 of 2010 (O&M) and Radhika Rani is concerned, the petition is allowed only to the extent regarding the summoning of specific record by the defendant- petitioner from the firm M/s Hans Raj Anil Kumar. In case the defendant-petitioner moves an application mentioning specific record and particular dates regarding specific entries having relevance to the subject matter of the suit, the same will be allowed by the trial Court. Giving this opportunity to the defendant-petitioner, this petition is dismissed setting aside the impugned order partly. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 11, 2011. rka . . . 5