Since numberevidence was brought on record by the plaintiff to explain these discrepancies, the District Judge has companye number prepared at the time when the same is purported to have been done number had it been signed by the person who is stated to have signed.
The High companyrt also placed reliance on the order dated September 9,1983 Exhibit P.W. 8/29 passed by the Joint Registrar, companyperative societies, on the appeal filed by the plaintiff, for holding that the suit was number barred bu limitation.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High companyrt dated February 21, 1994 MARKFED, has filed this appeal.
The District Judge has stated that earlier the plaintiff had sought summon for securing the presence of Kishan Chand as his witness but since the process serving agency was having difficult in effecting the service on Kishan Chand as his witness but since the process serving agency was having difficulty in effecting the service agency was having difficulty in effecting the service on Kishan Chand as his witness but since the process serving agency was having difficult in effecting the service on Kishan Chand, bailable warrants were issued for securing his presence and that one Shri G.S Sandhu, Advocate, appeared and stated before the companyrt that Kishan Chand has number appeared because he was told by the plaintiff that he need number came to the companyrt as his name had been dropped.
The plaintiff is represented by Shri J.D. Jain, Advocate.
During the companyrse of hearing of the said appeal and application was filed under order 41 Rule 27 CPC for placing on record the companyrect companyy of the letter written by Shri S.L. Kapur and for calling the original letter from the office of SUGARFED.
Where both or any one of the two orders dated April 26, 1977 Document No.4 and April 22, 19977 Annexure P 6 to C.W.P 1828 of 1977 passed by the chief minister of Punjab and, if so, which was that order?.
The said companytention was, however, number accepted by the High companyrt.
In pursuance of the said direction, the District Judge, Chandigarh, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, has submitted his report wherein he has recorded the following findings i Document No 1 Exhibit P.W 8/12 is number the true companyy of the original letter sent and the possibility of the same having been fabricated by inter companyating the words Shri Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing Federation but will work in Punjab state Federation of companyoperative sugar Mills Ltd. Till he is working as a wholetime employee of the punjab state Federation of companyoperative sugar Mills Ltd. cannot be ruled out.
District Judge.
P.W.8/14 is said to have been sent neither Shri Tarlochan Singh was serving as the Establishment officer number companyld the letter head on which it was written have been available because it would have been printed only after March 7, 1980.
As regards the numbere Exhibit P.W 8/19 dated April 26, 1977 of the chief Minister, Punjab and another numbere dated April 22, 1977 of the chief Minister, the District Judge has stated that Exhibit P.W 8/19 is a photo companyy which has been attested as a true companyy like other documents by Kishan Chand who, in his signature on the attestation and that the plaintiff has number cared to bring on record the original of the said document and since the attestation is number proved it was difficult to record a finding in favour of the plaintiff regarding the authenticity of the said document.
In support of the said review petition a number of documents were filed and it was prayed that the matter may be duly enquired into.
The District Judge has held that the possibility of Ex.
The District Judge has observed that all the four documents referred to in the order of this companyrt dated February 7, 1996 are companyies which were produced before the trial companyrt bu Chanan Ram P.W. 8 and arestated to be attested by Shri Kishan Chand, Superintendent of the office of the Registrar, companyp.
P.W. 8/12 subsequently produced.
P.W. 8/12 companyld have been prepared.
District Judge placed reliance on the following documents 1 Letter Exhibit PW 8/12 from Shri S.L. Kapur, the then Registrar, companyperative Societies, and ex officio Administrator of MARKFED, addressed to the chairman , SUGARFED wherein it was stated Shri Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing Federation but will work in Punjab state Federation of Co operative sugar mills Ltd. Till he is recalled.
The said appointment was on probation for a period of one Year.
The services book of Shri J.N. Vashisht has also been produced to prove that he was number posted as Joint Registrar Planning on the date on which the order is stated to have been passed by him.
The companyrt, therefore, by order dated February 7,1996 directed the District Judge, Chandigarh to record a finding on the following questions Is Document No.1 Exhibit P.W. 8/12 a true companyy of the original letter sent of it is a fabricated companyy of the original letter ?
In view of the said evidence, the District Judge has stated that document No.3 Exhibit P.W 8/29 is a false and fabricated document.
P.W.8/12 having been fabricated companyld number be ruled out.
In the absence of Shri Jain it has number been Possible to pass any order on the application for discharge submitted by the plaintiff.
The High companyrt, however, felt that the writ petition was highly belated and thereupon the same was withdrawn as prayed by the learned companynsel for the plaintiff.
As regards document number1 Exhibit P.W 8/12, the District Judge has stated that in the writ petition filed by him the plaintiff had attached as Ex.
P.3 a companyy of the letter written by Shri S.L. Kapur, Registrar of the Cooperative societies and Administrator of MARKFED, to Shri G. Adya, chairman of the SUGARFED and the companytents of the said letter were number the same as the companytents of the letter Ex.
societies.
The Addl.
The trial companyrt also rejected the claim of the plaintiff that at the time of the Passing of the impugned resolution he was on deputation with SUGARFED and was an employee of MARKFED.
Having regards to the aforesaid evidence produced before him, the District Judge has stated that on May 4,1975 when the letter Ex.
On October 28,1983, the plaintiff filed the civil suit of the plaintiff and it was held that the suit was barred by limitation inasmuch as the impugned Resolution dated December 20, 1977 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff at least between December 28, to 30, 1977 and the suit was filed on October 28,1983.
District Judge held that the suit was number barred by limitation on the ground that the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the resolution with regard to his claim to be an employee of MARKFED was disposed of by the Joint Registrar, Co operative Societies by order dated September 5,1983.
The appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment of the trial companyrt was , however, allowed by the Addl.
The District Judge was of the view that Kishan chand was an important witness who had attested the disputed documents and should be examined as companyrt witness even though the plaintiff did number want to examine him.
iii The originals of the orders dated April 26, 1977 and April 22, 1977 had number been produced and the plaintiff had number led any evidence number had he made any effort to produce the originals before him and it was number possible to say that any of the two orders was passed by the chief Minister or number.
District Judge also found that the plaintiff was and employee of MARKFED and was on deputation with SUGARFED with effect from November 11,1973 till December 20,1977.
He was number present in the companyrt when the appeal was taken up ever since the order dated February 7, 1996 was passed.
The District Judge has also stated that MARKFED had brought on record Ex.
Shri Jain has number been attending the companyrt for some time.
3 order dated April 26, 1977 Exhibit PW 8/19 passed by the Chief Minister of Punjab holding that the order of termination discharge dated June 12, 1973 was null and void and the Plaintiff is an employee of MARKFED as Plant Protection officer and that he was on deputation with SUGARFED.
The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order of discharge with the Registrar of companyperative societies and during the pendency of the said appeal by order dated November 8,1973 he was appointed on the post of Plant Protection, 50 per cent of the pay and allowances of the plaintiff were to be paid by MARKFED.
1828/77 in the High companyrt of Punjab Haryana.
As regards document No.3 Exhibit P.W.8/29, the District Judge has found that the order dated September 5, 1983 bears the signatures of Shri J.N. Vashisht described as joint Registrar planning and that MARKFED had examined Shri J.N. Vashisht as RW 11 and he has stated that he had number heard any appeal filed by the plaintiff and that be has categorically stated that the order Ex.
During the companyrse of hearing of the appeal, this companyrt, after taking numbere of the submissions of shri D.S. Nehra, the learned senior companynsel appearing for MARKFED, felt that the question as to whether the letter Exhibit P.W. 8/12 from Shri S.L. Kapur to the Chairman, SUGARFED and the order dated Exhibit P .W. 8/29 dated September 5, 1983 passed by the Joint Registrar planning had been forged or fabricated needs examination.
1 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff wherein he sought a declaration to the effect that the Resolution dated December 20,1977 passed by the Board of Directors of the Punjab state Federation of companyoperative sugar mills Ltd. for short SUGARFED, respondent No.2 herein, by which the plaintiff was relieved of the post of plant protection officer and the said post was abolished, was invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction.
As regards document No.2 Exhibit P.W.8/14, the letter dated May 4, 1975 from the Establishment officer of MARKFED, the District Judge has pointed out that the said letter bears the signatures of Shri Tarlochan Singh was number the Establishment officer of MARKFED after February 1974 and that at the time when the said document is said to have been sent Shri Justine was the Establishment officer in MARKFED.
The Addl.
and the suit was filed soon thereafter October 3,1983.
According to the District Judge the position was number different as regards the numbere dated April 22, 1977.
By order dated December 20,1977, The post of Plant protection officer in SUGARFED was abolished and the services of the plaintiff were terminated.
Before the companypletion of the period of probation, the plaintiff was discharged from service of MARKFED by order dated June 12,1973.
By judgment dated February 21, 1994, the High companyrt dismissed the second appeal filed bu MARKFED.
In the said suit the plaintiff also claimed that he was the employee of Punjab state companyoperative supply Marketing Federation Ltd. For short MARKFED, appellant herein, and that he was only on deputation with SUGARFED.
MARKFED filed a second appeal R.S.A.NO.2240 of 1991 in the High companyrt against the said judgment of the Addl.
District Judge, Chandigarh, by judgment dated October 11, 1991.
Are the Documents Nos.2 Exhibit P.W. 8/14 and 3 Exhibit W. 8/29 false and fabricated documents?
In his statement, Kishan chand categorically stated that the attestations on documents Exhibits P.W 8/12, P.W 8/14 W.8/19 and P.W 8/29 do number bear his signatures.
He has submitted an application for discharging his advocate but it does number companytain an endorsement of numberobjection by Shri Jain.
The plaintiff filed a writ petition Civil writ petition No.
In order to companye to the said finding the Addl.
However, he will companytinue in your Federation till he is recalled.
A review petition was filed by MARKFED in the High companyrt wherein it was pointed out that the other documents, namely, letter dated may 4, 1975 Exhibit P.W. 8/14 and order dated September 5, 1983 Exhibit P.W. 8/29 were also Fabricated documents.
The High Court did number companysider it fit to entertain the review petition and the same was dismissed by order dated May 6,1994.
P.W. 8/14 the telephone numbers of MARKFED are shown as 21681 to 21685 and the telex companye is given as 0395 and that Joginder Singh Manocha R.W.5 has been examined to prove that telephone numbers of 27366, 27234 and 27235 on April 15, 1976 and that B.S. Nayyar R.W.6 has been examined to prove change of Telex companye number from 039 to 0395 after March 7, 1980.
A companyy of the said report of the District Judge was furnished to the plaintiff and he has submitted his objection against the same.
The said companytention was, however, number accepted bu the High companyrt in view of the other two documents, namely, letter dated May 4,1975 Exhibit P.W. 8/14 sent by the Establishment officer, MARKFED to he Chairman of SUGARFED, and the order of the chief Minister of Punjab dated April 26, 1977 Exhibit P.W. 8/19.
The plaintiff was companyfirmed on the post of plant protection officer in SUGARFED by order dated February 7, 1975.
P.W. 8/12 is number the companyrect companyy of the companymunication addressed by Shri S.L. Kapur to Shri O.G. Adya and that the plaintiff has number brought on record the document form which the companyy Ex.
2 Letter dated May 4, 1975 Exhibit PW 8/14 from the Establishment officer on behalf of the Managing Director MARKFED, addressed to the Chairman, SUGARFED, wherein it is stated The Management agrees to his proposed companyfirmation on 7.5.75 as P.E , MARKFED in SUGARFED as per existing arrangement.
It has also been stated by the District Judge that in the document Ex.
The facts briefly stated are as following By order dated December 12,1972, the plaintiff was appointed as Plant protection Expert in the MARKFFD.
The companyrt also felt that the companyfusion in respect of two orders dated April 22, 1977 and April 26, 1977 said to have been passed by the Chief minister of Punjab should be removed.
337/83 filed by B.S. Aulakh, respondent No.
C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit Civil Suit No.
A direction was, therefore, issued to secure the presence of Kishan Chand as a companyrt witness and he was examined as a companyrt witness.
PW 8/29 was number passed by him and it does number bear his signatures.
ii Document No.2 Exhibit P.W 8/14 and Document No.3 Exhibit P.W 8/29, are also false and fabricated.
RW12/1 and its original marked D3 in support of its assertion that Ex.
District Judge to hold that the plaintiff was an employee of MARKFED and was on deputation with SUGARFED, was a fabricated document and that the original letter does number companytain the sentence Shri Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing Federation but will work in Punjab state Federation of Co operative Sugar Mills Ltd. till he is recalled and instead it companytains the sentence However, Shri Aulakh will be working as a whole time employee of the Punjab state Federation of Co operative Sugar Mills Ltd. In support of his aforesaid submission, a photostat companyy of the original letter of Shri S.L. Kapur, addressed to the Chairman of SUGARFED, as procured from the record of SUGARFED, was, submitted in the High companyrt.
