2018 (2) TMI 2053 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for permanent injunction - petitioner contended that he has no objection to mark any documents in which, the husband of the first defendant can be examined and the documents can be marked only when it relates to the second defendant - HELD THAT - In view of the representation, the respondent argued that she has expressed serious objections against the suit in the year 2014. When the proceedings are conducted in the year 2010, there is a variation in the signature of the petitioner, where as, the trial Court has observed a difference of signature and believed all the documents especially, the very same petition has been filed. Hence, observation of the trial Court does not required any interference. In view of the representation made by the respondent, the trial Court can be proceeded without any interception and in view of the finding, the first respondent has nothing to say about the case and she has not remembered anything about the said documents cannot be marked. This civil revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Receiving additional documents in a civil revision petition.
2. Contention regarding the genuineness of the documents filed.
3. Examination by Court Commissioner and statements made.
4. Dismissal of the petition by the trial Court.
5. Objections to marking documents related to the second defendant.
6. Variation in signatures and objections expressed by respondent.
7. Dismissal of the civil revision petition.

Analysis:
1. The civil revision petition was filed against the order passed in an application for receiving additional documents in a lawsuit for permanent injunction. The petitioner, the first defendant, sought to submit documents obtained recently, arguing they were not available when filing the written statements.

2. The plaintiff contended that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not genuine, as they were not signed by the first defendant and had discrepancies in signatures. The plaintiff also argued that the documents were not related to the property in question and could not be accepted by the Court.

3. The Court Commissioner's report revealed that the first defendant claimed memory loss and health issues, stating her husband would proceed with the case. The Commissioner's report was submitted to the Court, leading to the trial Court's dismissal of the petition due to inconsistencies and lack of genuineness.

4. The trial Court dismissed the petition after considering the arguments and evidence presented, including the discrepancies in signatures and the Commissioner's report indicating the first defendant's inability to provide evidence.

5. The petitioner expressed willingness to mark documents for examination by the husband of the first defendant but objected to marking documents related to the second defendant. The trial Court found no reason to interfere with its decision based on the arguments presented.

6. The respondent raised objections to the suit in 2014, highlighting variations in signatures and supporting the trial Court's decision based on the discrepancies observed in the documents filed by the petitioner.

7. The civil revision petition was ultimately dismissed based on the observations and arguments presented by both parties, affirming the trial Court's decision regarding the acceptance of additional documents and the dismissal of the petition.