An agreement to sell dated 26.03.1990 was entered into by and between the parties hereto in relation to the premises bearing House No.
The learned trial Judge reframed the issue allowing the said application in terms of order dated 9.2.2005.
A sale deed was executed pursuant to the said agreement to sell on 27.03.1991.
The appellant filed his written statement in the said suit denying or disputing the allegations companytained therein.
On the pleadings of the parties herein, issues were framed by the learned trial Judge including the following Whether the sale deed dated 26.3.1991 is forged and fabricated as prayed for?
86, situate in Sector 18A, Chandigarh.
2 reads as under Whether the alleged sale deed dated 26.3.1991 is a valid and genuine document?
An application was filed by the respondent for deletion of the said issue and reframe the same.
However, a suit for declaration was filed by the respondent herein alleging that the said sale deed dated 26.3.1991 was a forged, fabricated and was a void document.
5963 of 2006 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Reframed issue No.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
A revision application filed on behalf of the appellant herein against the said order was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned order stating In the present case, it is the case of the plaintiff respondent that he had number executed any sale deed dated 26.3.1991 in favour of the defendant appellant and it was a forged and fabricated document.
1077 of 2005 dismissing his revision application arising out of an order dated 9.2.2005 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division , Chandigarh.
The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein.
He is before us aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 14th December, 2005 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.
