Parmanand and Another vs Devi Lal and Others

Mahesh Bhagwati

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 29th November, 2011, whereby the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pilani dismissed the application of the petitioners- defendants, wherein they had implored that the plaintiffs may not be allowed to mark exhibit on the document, which was stated to be a patta. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is revealed that the plaintiffs filed one document stating the same to be a patta issued by the then Thikanedar. The petitioners-defendants raised an objection that the so-called patta was not registered and it did not bear the signatures also. Hence, it was a forged document, which could not be exhibited in evidence.

The learned trial court is found to have dealt with the application as also the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants ad-longum and observed that mere marking exhibit on a document did not prove the contents thereof. The learned trial court also observed that unless the document was exhibited, how the genuineness of the document could be determined. Marking exhibit on a document is one thing and proof thereof is another thing. If the learned trial court allowed the plaintiffs-respondents to exhibit a document, it did not mean that the document was fully proved. The onus to prove the genuineness of the said document lies on the plaintiff, who has fulfilled it. The finding arrived at by the learned trial court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is found to be just and proper, which warrant no intervention.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, , their Lordships of Hon''ble Apex Court have held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a reserved and exceptional power for judicial intervention to be exercised not merely for the grant of relief in any even of the case, but only to be directed for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice. It has been held that the power is unfettered, but subject to high degree of judicial discipline and interference is to be kept at the minimum."

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed in limine accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.