Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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