Civil Revision No.4357 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4357 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.2.2009 Jaspal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Ranjit Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manisha Sahota, Advocate for Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate the respondents S.D.ANAND, J. On an averment that he is owner in possession of the land in suit, the plaintiff-petitioner applied for the grant of a declaration that the impugned power of attorney dated 3.4.2000 and the sale deeds dated 29.6.2000 and 29.3.2001 which had allegedly been executed on the basis of above mentioned power of attorney, are forged, fabricated and not binding upon him. Consequential relief of injunction and restraint of alienation was also sought. In the course of the trial, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application to obtain the leave of the Court to aver the following facts:- i) That he had lodged an FIR in the context against the defendants/respondents. ii) That bail plea of the defendants/respondents had been rejected by the Court. Iii) A challan in pursuance of the aforementioned FIR had Civil Revision No.4357 of 2008 -2- **** been filed against the defendants/respondents. The learned Trial Court noticed that the averments mentioned at items no.1 and 2 had indeed been taken up in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff-petitioner at the trial. Qua the 3rd item, the Court observed that it was not required to be pleaded. There is plethora of law on the point that nature of evidence to be produced and is not to be pleaded. The plaintiff-petitioner has already challenged the impugned general power of attorney and sale deeds executed on the basis thereof as a forged affair. In the rejoinder itself, he had mentioned the lodging of FIR by him against the defendants/respondents and also the fact that bail application filed by them had been rejected. The evidence, by means of which an allegation of forgery is to be proved by the party averring, is not to be pleaded. The impugned order is valid in character. The reasoning, noticed in support thereof, deserves affirmation. The petition is held to be complete bereft of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 17, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge