C.R.No.3064 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3064 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 B.K. Sharma .....Petitioner Versus Brig Madan Dass and others ....Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has allowed an application sought at the instance of plaintiff for framing additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5. The additional issues sought for are to the following effect:- “(I) Whether late Pt. Banarsi Dass had executed a valid agreement dated 30.07.1997? (II) Whether Pt. Banarsi Dass had executed valid trust deed dated 03.11.1995. 2. The court while framing the issues has adverted to the pleadings and has held that the plaintiff had contended that the executant had been in bed and unconscious and the signatures and thumb impressions had been taken on some documents and the impugned documents have been brought about by the defendants. It is one thing to plead a case of mere fraud with details thereon and quite another for a person to implead non est factum. The plea of non est C.R.No.3064 of 2005 (O&M) -2- even if it is not expressly taken, must be understood as the real key issue to be decided when the person impugning the document challenges the same on the basis that the person did not simply know what the document was; in other words, the mind did not follow the deed. Such document shall always be void and inoperative and the person who afffirms that such documents exist shall prove the same. In this case, the defendant's contention is that the agreement had been executed and the burden shall be, therefore, on the person who forms the document. Specific issues had to be framed casting the onus of proof on the defendant and that is how the application has come to be filed and how the order impugned has been passed. 3. The order, under the circumstances, is perfectly justified and there is no scope for interference. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 25, 2009 Pankaj*