C.R. No.2052 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2052 of 2009 Date of decision : March 04, 2010 Tej Bhan ....Petitioner versus Jatinder Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil Chawala, Advocate, for respondent No.1 *** L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1 Tej Bhan has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 11.02.2009(Annxure P/1) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar, thereby dismissing application moved by defendant No.1 under Order 13 rule 14 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC'). It may be noticed at the outset that there is no rule 14 in Order 13 of CPC. Suit has been filed by respondent No.1 Jatinder Kaur against petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5 for specific performance C.R. No.2052 of 2009 -2- of agreement to sell dated 24.11.1995 allegedly entered into by defendant No.1 with the plaintiff. Sale-deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 have also been challenged in the suit. The plaintiff herself appeared as PW/1 and tendered her affidavit Annexure P/2 as examination -in-chief. Cross-examination was deferred on the request of defendants. The plaintiff also examined her husband Major Singh as PW2, who tendered his affidavit Annexure P/3 as examination-in-chief. His cross- examination was also deferred on request of defendants. The plaintiff tendered documents Exhibit P1 to P20 in her affidavit of examination-in-chief, whereas Major Singh PW2 tendered documents Exhibits PW2/2 to PW2/12 in his affidavit of examination-in-chief. It was thereafter that defendant No.1 moved application Annexure P4 for de-exhibiting the aforesaid documents. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by impugned order Annexure P/1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Insofar as the agreement to sell Exhibit P/2 is conceerned, the same has been proved by the plaintiff because she has stated that it has been signed by her as well as defendant No.1, which is sufficient mode of proof for proving the document. I may hasten to add that evidentiary value of the statement of PW1 would be C.R. No.2052 of 2009 -3- evaluated by the trial Court at appropriate stage and nothing observed herein shall influence the same. The aforesaid observation is only regarding mode of proof. Sale Deed Exhibit P/4 was executed by plaintiff herself and is therefore, proved by her statement Copy of order Exhibit P/5 and copy of statement Exhibit P/6 are per se admissible in evidence. Power of attorney Exhibit P/7 has been formally proved by the plaintiff. Certified copy of order Exhibit P/8 is per se admissible in evidence. Sale deeds Exhibit P9 to Exhibit P/11 are not disputed by the defendants. Sale deed Exhibit P/12 by Improvement Trust in favour of the petitioner himself is also undisputed. Agreement Exhibit P/14 is between petitioner and his own brothers under which the petitioner claims the suit property and therefore, the same is also not in dispute. Applications/representations Exhibit P/15 to P/20 were made by the plaintiff herself and therefore, she was competent prove the same. Exhibit PW2/5 is copy of plaint which was instituted by Major Singh PW/2 and his wife PW/1 and therefore, the same can be proved by Major Singh. Copies of orders Exhibit PW2/6 to PW2/8 are per se admissible in evidence. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the trial Court shall at appropriate stage determine the mode of proof of remaining documents Exhibit P/1, Exhibit P/3, Exhibit P/13, Exhibits PW2/2 to C.R. No.2052 of 2009 -4- PW2/4 and PW/9 to PW2/12. With aforesaid direction, the instant revision petition stands disposed of It is again made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall influence the trial Court while assessing the evidentiary value of different documents and statements of witnesses. (L.N. Mittal) March 04, 2010 Judge vcgarg