Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits  ||  SC: CPC Amendment Allowed When New Facts and Reliefs Directly Relate to Existing Dispute  ||  SC: Governing Law Clause Relevant to Determine Arbitral Seat When Two Venues Are Named  ||  Supreme Court: Section 161 CrPC Statements Can Be Considered at Cognizance Stage, Not at Trial  ||  Bombay High Court Directs Release of Protesters Held over Anti-ECI Agitations  ||  Kerala High Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 21,000 Post-Surgery Assistance to Transgender Person  ||  Madras High Court: DVAC Not Entitled to Blanket RTI Exemption in Corruption Cases  ||  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota for Breaching 50% Reservation Cap  ||  Delhi HC: First-Come, First-Served Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Automatic Revocation of Christian Wills on Marriage under S.69 Succession Act    

Prabiyotsing Vs. Shrivallabh Ramgopal Ramchandraji Darak - (High Court of Bombay) (16 Feb 2021)

If the falsity, forgery, fabrication of documents is pleaded then a proper issue in respect thereof needs to be framed

MANU/MH/0400/2021

Civil

Present is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, by the Original Defendant in Civil Suit assailing the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application by the Original Plaintiff Respondent for framing the additional issue.

The Defendant has denied the relation, transaction, supply, delivery, credit/debit ledger, the invoices, delivery challans, documents as well as the amount claimed. There is no admission of any fact in the case at hand. Even otherwise, since the allegation of falsity, forgery and fabrication of documents are made by the Defendant, the burden of proving that would be on the Defendant and cannot be on the Plaintiff.

There is no doubt that a person who attacks a transaction as sham, bogus or fictitious, must prove the same. But, first, the Plaintiff has to prove whether the transaction in question is bonafide and genuine. It is only when this is done, that the Respondent has to dislodge it by proving that it is a sham, bogus and fictitious transaction. When a plea is taken in the written statement but an issue is not framed, the parties would be deprived of leading evidence. Also, if the falsity, forgery, fabrication of documents is pleaded then a proper issue in respect thereof needs to be framed.

In the case at hand, admittedly, the additional issue has been framed only on the basis of the pleadings and therefore, the interlocutory order of the Trial Court cannot be faulted. There is no jurisdictional error on the part of the Trial Judge nor any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Entertaining the prayers of the petitioner would result in interference of the trial. The Impugned Order is an interlocutory order. All the contentions/issues can always be asserted before the Trial Court. Petition dismissed.

Tags : ADDITIONAL ISSUE   FRAMING OF   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved