Petitioners at disadvantage as to filing of fake documents
M Satyanarayana
(Querist) 07 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
In the partition suit after preliminary decree the respondent has gone for appeal. If the defendant/respondent files document under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in the appellate court claiming interim relief and subsequently rejected at the admission stage itself without any directions for remand to trial court and the same documents reproduced in the trial court under Order 8 (1)(a) Counter claim supressing the material fact from the court the alleged document is unregistered relinquishment deed and has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Can the defendant has legal right to agitate the case in the same suit that has been produced in the appellate court and again produced the same documents in the trial court to prolong the litigation. What evidence is required to prove the same.
Can the trial court ask the respondent on what grounds the respondent appeal in the Appellate court because while filing the document the respondent admitted he has gone for appeal but have not disclosed the grounds of appeal. Is it not the right of the plaintiff to know on what grounds the respondent has gone for appeal and what documents were produced in the suit. The plaintiff is placed at disadvantage position if he does not know what documents were filed in the Appellate court and there is no guarantee that the same documents were diverted in the lower court once rejected documents at the appellate court.
Please kindly advise whether such documents are tenable or maintainable under law.
Thanking you,
MSN
Ramesh
(Expert) 11 February 2013
The query is a bit confusing. You say that the petition seeking for additional evidence at the appellate stage was dismissed. on the other hand you refer to a counter claim in the trial court. If the case went upto Supreme court and has been decided finally then what is the case pending in the trial court? If you can be more clear and specific then opinion can be given.
