R.S.A No. 4049 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4049 of 2006 Date of decision : November 10, 2008 Smt Indu Rani & others, ...... Appellants. through Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rohan Chaudhary, Adv. v. Raj Singh Dalal & another, ...... Respondents through Mr.Narinder Hooda, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) In this appeal against the concurrent judgments, the only argument raised by counsel for the appellants arises from the following observations of the learned lower appellate Court :- “ 9. There is no dispute about the legal proposition of law laid down in Section 33 (1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is also no dispute that the burden of proof of the genuineness of a document lies on the beneficiary and there is also no dispute that legal objection can be raised at any stage, but in the case in R.S.A No. 4049 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: hand, the dispute as to whether Mukesh, deceased plaintiff, at the time of executing the power of attorney dated 8.10.1999, was a temporary resident of Amritsar or not was a question of fact which could have been decided only if it had been raised by the plaintiff in the suit and the validity of the power of attorney had been assailed on that ground. ....” Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention towards paragraph 6(b) of the plaint where it has been categorically alleged that the plaintiff never went to Amritsar. In my opinion, thus, the above mentioned observations of the learned lower appellate Court are ex-facie unjustifiable. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the learned lower appellate Court for a fresh decision in view of the averments made in paragraph 6(b) of the plaint. It is, however, clarified that even though the judgment in appeal has been set aside on this limited wrong finding, yet it would be open to the parties to re-argue the appeal on all points. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower appellate Court on 16.12.2008. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 10 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'