Civil Revision No. 7611 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7611 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 09.12.2011 Satpal Bharti .... Petitioner Versus Nand Lal Bharti ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Jastej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.29336-CII of 2011 The application for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-2 to P-9 is allowed. C.R. No.7611 of 2011 Satpal Bharti, the defendant has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.10.2011 vide which learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri had dismissed his application to amendment of the written statement for incorporating the subsequent events. Civil Revision No. 7611 of 2011(O&M) 2 Nand Lal Bharti, the respondent had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that he is exclusive owner in possession of H.No. 136 AR situated in Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. He had claimed in the suit that he and the defendant are brothers. According to him, in lieu of the ancestral property left in West Pakistan at the time of partition of the country, the house in question was allotted in the name of the defendant in the year 1950 and it fell to his share in a family settlement. The defendant had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of his written statement. He has referred to various pieces of information which he received in pursuance of his applications under Right to Information Act, the material part of which is that the record of the conveyance deed of the house in question was not found there in the record of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) Yamuna Nagar. He has also claimed that he had obtained a certified copy of alleged conveyance deed from the court in February, 2006 and supplied the same to the authority and it has been revealed by Tehsildar (Sales) Ambala that the signatures on the said conveyance deed were not of the Collector, who was posted at that time. He has also claimed that he had shown the conveyance deed to handwriting expert, who has verbally told him that the same does not bear the signatures of defendant-applicant and, therefore, the document is not genuine. By way of amendment in the written statement, the defendant wanted to insert these facts claiming them to be subsequent events. Civil Revision No. 7611 of 2011(O&M) 3 The application was opposed by the plaintiff, who has claimed that the application is nothing but abuse of process of law, which is filed in a suit pending for the last six years. According to him, the original conveyance deed is on the file and can be verified from the concerned authority. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide the impugned order. I have heard Mr.Jastej Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. There is no dispute before me on the fact that the plaintiff and defendant are brothers. There is also no dispute about the fact that they had migrated from West Pakistan at the time of partition of the country. It is also not in dispute that the house in question was allotted in the name of the defendant in the year 1950. The document regarding which the defendant-petitioner claims that the same is not genuine is the conveyance deed which has been executed not in favour of the plaintiff but in favour of the defendant. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the defendant does not claim a conveyance deed to have been executed in his favour by Naib Tehsildar (Sales) or any other concerned authority on allotment of the house to him. If the conveyance deed produced by the plaintiff is fake, forged and so not genuine, the defendant may produce the original or genuine document and then may claim that the conveyance deed produced by the plaintiff is fake. Civil Revision No. 7611 of 2011(O&M) 4 The cause of action with the plaintiff is not based on the conveyance deed executed in respect of house No.136-AR, Model town, Yamuna Nagar in favour of the defendant. He claims that this house was allotted in lieu of the ancestral property left in West Pakistan and that in family settlement it fell to his share. The decision upon the claim made by the plaintiff does not rest on genuineness or otherwise of the conveyance deed executed in favour of the defendant. It is very strange to note that the document had been before the defendant and he claims that his signatures thereon are stated by the handwriting expert to be not genuine. If the signatures of the defendant on the conveyance deed are not genuine, it is he who is the first person to say so. For these reasons, I do not find that learned trial court has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 09.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh