Full Text
% 02.9.2011
Present: Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jagat Rana, Advocate for the respondents.
+CM(M)No.1348/2009 & CM No.16803/2009 (for stay)
*
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
18.9.2009 vide which an application filed by the plaintiff under
Section 73 and 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking an expert opinion on the admitted and questioned signatures of PW-9 on the Lal
Dora certificate with a prayer that the said signature be sent for comparison had been dismissed. Lal Dora certificate is Ex.PW-1/2.
The present suit is a suit for injunction which has been filed by the plaintiff; contention of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit land since last 50 years; further contention is that he had been issued the Lal Dora certificate by the office of the SDM dated
03.10.1984 (Ex.PW-1/2).
Issues had been framed and issue no.3 reads hereinbelow:
"3.Whether the concerned authorities issued Lal Dora
Certificate dated 03.10.1984?0PD"
The onus to discharge this issue was on the defendant.
Oral and documentary evidence was in progress. Statement of PW-9 the SDM was recorded on 26.5.2009. In this statement recorded of
PW-9 on 26.5.2009 he had deposed that he is not sure whether
Ex.PW-1/2 was issued by him under his signature or not; specific court questions were also put to the witness which are noted in his testimony on oath; however, the answers of PW-9 were not specific as to whether Ex.PW-1/2 was signed by him or not. Thereafter on
JUDGMENT
4. 7.2009 the present application had been filed. Contention of the. petitioner is that this application has been filed by way of abundant precaution; a piece of evidence will be gathered by the plaintiff to substantiate his submission that Ex.PW-1/2 had in fact been issued by PW-9. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition. The onus to discharge issue no.3 as noted supra is admittedly upon the defendant; he has to discharge the onus whether the aforenoted certificate Ex.PW-1/2 dated 3.10.1984 was issued by the concerned authorities or not. Defendants' evidence has now been closed before the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no specific evidence has been led by the defendant to discharge the onus a of issue no.3. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the onus to discharge this issue was specifically on defendant no.3; this application filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed and this order calls for no interference. Petition is disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2011 nandan INDERMEET KAUR, J.