The appellant relied on an agreement dated 30.03.1988 to submit that the respondent was working in the disputed shop and that he was number a tenant.
The basis for the companyplaint was the opinion of the handwriting expert submitted in the civil companyrt.
The aggrieved appellant, preferred Civil Appeal No.The civil suit came to be decided on 13.05.2015 holding that the signature of respondent number2 on the agreement dated 30.03.1988 was forged and that it was a fabricated document.
Even while the suit was pending, the present companyplaint came to be filed alleging that the agreement dated 30.03.1988 produced by the appellant in the suit was a false and fabricated document and that the respondent had never signed such an agreement.
12 of 1996 stating that he was a tenant in the disputed shop and was wrongly being asked to vacate, declining to accept rent, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from evicting him, disconnecting the telephone and water companynection etc.
NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted.
The respondent filed Original Suit No.
