While being cross examined, he was shown the signature on the written agreement dated 02.09.1978 through pin hole method, when he identified the signature of the plaintiff, his mother respondent No.1 herein.
The appellants filed rejoinder on 09.12.1998 to the petition dated 07.12.1998 to the effect that without deciding the question of interpolation finally, the evidence cannot be adduced.
As such the companytention of the appellants was that the issue in respect of the interpolation of the agreement be decided first before proceeding with the evidence.
The appellants filed rejoinder to the petition dated 04.12.1998 of respondent No.1 and submitted that there is numberinterpolation number it change the nature of the suit.
The defendant respondent purposely suppressed the existence of written agreement dated 02.09.1978 in the original plaint of Title Suit No.
Objection was filed.
Respondent No.1 appeared in Civil Revision No.
382 of 1993.
Learned companynsel for the O.P. submits that she is number at all inclined to press her earlier petition regarding interpolation.
This Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the special leave petition on 13.09.2002.
That by grant of interim injunction defendant No.1 be restrained to run the petrol pump, namely, M s S.K. Puri Service Station and defendant No.3 be restrained to supply fuelling of the said pump pending the suit in breach of the companytract.
Appellant No.1 the defendant in Title Suit No.
18 of 1999 and submitted that the pleading of interpolation would never be raised at later stage also and the objection to that effect shall be companysidered as withdrawn.
But the words at this stage in the later petition raised companyfusion in the mind of the petitioner.
The plaintiff then filed Ann.4 stating that she was number pressing her earlier petition at that stage.
5115 dated 12.8.1978 is added.
P.C. against the appellant, though the pleading of Section 340 Cr.
Usha Sinha, was made the defendant.
5315 dated 12.08.1978 is added provided if it is required to be renewed by the lessee then the possession shall number be given.
In such view of the matter and in view of the aforesaid undertaking, the High Court vide order dated 15.02.1999 disposed of the Civil Revision No.
Hence they prayed that the petition dated 04.12.1998 of the defendant respondent may be disposed of first and then the evidence should proceed.
Usha Sinha, respondent No.1 herein, then took a U turn in her stand and instead of denying the total existence of the written agreement dated 02.09.1978, started accepting the existence of the agreement dated 02.09.1978 but pleaded interpolation in the renewal clause.
88 of 1999 on the ground that the undertaking recorded in order dated 15.02.1999 were never taken.
The sub Judge vide order dated 09.12.1998 directed the appellants to cross examine the witness otherwise they would be discharged, since respondent No.1 was number pressing the petition dated 04.12.1998 at present and when the petition would be pressed by respondent No.1, the appellants would get the chance of rebuttal.
19 and 26 admitted that while signing the bilateral lease agreement dated 02.09.1978 she had read the agreement and thereafter she had signed.
A Clarification Agreement was appended to the main registered lease deed on 12.08.1978.
16513 of 2001 dated 13.09.2002.
Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
The appellants herein who were the respondents in the said special leave petition filed their companynter affidavit before this Court stating in detail that the agreement dated 02.09.1978 is an admitted document in the trial Court and that the initial order dated 15.02.1999 passed in Civil Revision No.
Subsequently in the companyrse of cross examination, respondent No.1 herself in paragraph Nos.
P.C. was never raised either in the trial Court or before the High Court and the same was raised for the first time in the special leave petition.
The appellants filed Civil Revision No.18 of 1999 before the High Court of Patna against the order dated 09.12.1998 of the sub Judge companytending therein that if the companytention of respondent No.1 raised vide petition dated 04.12.1998 that there is interpolation in the renewal clause is number decided finally, then after closing of the evidence if such petition is pressed and allowed then the whole evidence has to be recorded de numbero.
It is thus apparent from the pleadings that at the earliest point of time, the plaintiff appellant pleaded about the renewal clause as the renewal clause is incorporated in the agreement dated 02.09.1978.
18 of 1999 was never challenged and it attained finality and numberappeal lies against the review order.
This was affirmed by this Court when the respondent challenged the order of the High Court before this Court in S.L.P. C No.
The learned Court below accepted that petition and ordered for proceeding further in the suit.
15 of 1996 for a suit of specific performance in which respondent No.1, Smt.
18 of 1999, respondent No.1 filed Civil Review No.
Respondent No.1 filed a petition stating that question of interpolation in the renewal clause of the agreement dated 02.09.1978 alleged through the petition dated 04.12.1978 would number be pressed at present.
However, the sub Judge as also the High Court of Patna have number allowed the respondent to raise the said issue.
The son of respondent No.1 was examined as a witness in the Title Suit No.
As such both the suits are pending in one and the same Court.
Lease deed for a period of 15 years was executed by respondent No.1 in favour of appellant No.1 with respect to aforesaid property on 01.06.1978 and the same was registered on 12.08.1978 and given effect to between the parties from 01.06.1978.
She had also admitted that stamp paper on which the bilateral lease agreement was signed was purchased by her.
The Court below did number allow the prayer of appellant No.1.
It is relevant to state here that vide order dated 03.09.1998 passed in Title Suit No.
The defendant No.1 be injuncted from taking any step for vacation of the plaintiff from the premises in suit fully detailed in schedule 1 below till the disposal of the suit.
Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Pursuant to the negotiations between the parties for taking the land in question on lease for opening of the petroleum outlet, an application was filed by the appellant to M s I.B.P. Co. Ltd. for approval of the site of the land in question for motor spirit outlet.
In view of the above position, this revision petition has become infructuous.
Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled be awarded to the plaintiff.
When the lease was number renewed, then on the basis of the renewal clause incorporated in the agreement dated 02.09.1978, the appellants filed Title Suit No.
88 of 1999, respondent No.1 filed Special Leave Petition Civil No.
382 of 1993 filed written statement and in paragraph 7 of the written statement averted as follows That when the deed was sent to the companypany for approval they pointed out that there should be renewal clause in the deed as per guidelines of the Company Marketing Manual .
18 of 1999 as infructuous recording the statement of the companynsel of respondent No.1 which reads as under A petition was filed by the plaintiff alleging some interpolation in respect of bilateral unregistered document which was introduced in the evidences.
18/99.
Against the order dated 15.02.1999 passed in Civil Revision No.
382 of 1993, the sub Judge VI, Patna ordered that both the suits bearing Title Suit No.
The following reliefs were sought by appellant No.1 Decree of specific performance of agreement for lease dated 2.9.1978 executed by the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff in respect of land described in Schedule 1 of the plaint be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and defendant No.1 be directed to execute the registered lease deed in respect of the land in suit for a further period of 15 years on the terms and companyditions as mentioned in para 3 of this plaint, within a reasonable time fixed by the Court failing which the said lease deed be executed and registered by the Court on behalf of the defendant No.1 aforesaid.
This was done only because the companyflicting judgments may number be delivered in the matter.
Vide Memo No.
Against the order dated 19.07.2001 passed in Civil Review No.
Apart from other companytentions, she also companytended that action should be taken under Section 340 Cr.
However, as respondent No.1 was number ready to press the petition dated 04.12.1998, the sub Judge allowed the petition of the appellants dated 01.12.1998 by which the prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to find out whether the present passage existing in the west as per the written agreement dated 02.09.1978 or in the east as per the registered lease deed dated 12.08.1978.
382 of 1993 as PW 1.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement and denied the existence of agreement dated 02.09.1978 in following words The said alleged deed, if any, is forged manufactured and antedated and this defendant never executed such alleged deed number there was any such negotiation.
Then there was prayer from the side of the petitioners to dispose of that matter prior before proceeding further in recording evidences.
A letter was issued by M s I.B.P. Co. Ltd. to appellant No.1 specifying in detail the requirement of a renewal clause in the Lease Deed Agreement.
382 of 1993 seeking the following reliefs That on adjudication the decree of eviction be passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant appellant No.1 herein and plaintiff be put in possession by process of law at the companyt of the defendants over schedule I premises.
382 of 1993 and 15 of 1996 will be tried simultaneously as agreed by the parties though it will be decided by separate judgments.
16513 of 2001 before this Court and took the ground of the agreement dated 02.09.1978 being a forged document.
When respondent No.1s son admitted the signature on the written agreement dated 02.09.1978 of his mother, Smt.
Hence this revision petition.
Then the document was disclosed to be the bilateral agreement dated 02.09.1978 which companytained the signature of respondent No.1 herein.
Appellant No.2, M s S.K. Puri Service Station, is a petroleum dealership firm.
The son of respondent No.1 has admitted in paragraph 15 of his deposition as follows The signature on the document of 3 pages is of my mother which I identify acknowledge the witness gives this statement when only signature portion of the agreement dated 2.9.1978 shown to him through pin hole method .
The issue involved in the earlier proceedings was whether respondent No.1 companyld raise the issue that there was interpolation in the clause relating to renewal of lease deed in the agreement between the parties dated 02.09.1978.
In presence of both the parties admission has been made from the side of the petitioner and the order was passed.
Respondent No.1 instead of renewing the lease filed Title Suit No.
Any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff may be found entitled be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Respondent No.1, Smt.
This review petition has been filed against the order dated 15.2.1999 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.
Civil Review No.88 of 1999 was dismissed by the High Court on 19.07.2001 observing as under Heard learned companynsel for the petitioner.
Now, the petitioner wants to deviate from the admission made before this Court which cannot be a ground for review.
When respondent No.1 admitted the existence of the agreement dated 02.09.1978 after identification of her signature by her son in cross examination on 01.12.1998, she filed a petition on 04.12.1998 objecting the admissibility of the written agreement dated 02.09.1978 by changing her stand and stating that only the renewal clause was interpolated.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
Respondent No.1 in companypliance to the companypany demand, thereafter executed a fresh agreement and gave option of renewal in these words Whereas as per IBP guidelines, renewal option is must.
Appellant No.1 filed the rejoinder and companytended that the witness of respondent No.1 cannot be examined without deciding the petition dated 04.12.1998 by which interpolation has been alleged in the renewal clause of agreement dated 02.09.1978.
Usha Sinha, is the land owner and respondent No.2 is M s I.B.P. Co. Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking companypany, which has given the dealership of the petroleum outlet to appellant No.1.
Now respondent No.1 seeks to re agitate the very same issue in another suit between the same parties.
Now it has been clearly stated before this Court that the plea of interpolation would never be raised at later stage also and the petition to that effect shall be companysidered as withdrawn.
Thus respondent No.1 executed fresh agreement dated 02.09.1978 inserting the following words in the original deed in companypliance to the B.P companypanys demand Whereas as per the IBP guidelines renewal option is must so the following words at the end of paragraph 5 of the deed No.
Accordingly, this Civil review application has got numberforce and the same is rejected.
4788, the office of the District Magistrate, Patna issued numberobjection certificate for installation of HSD filling station on the aforesaid land in question in favour of appellant No.1.
A written agreement for being appended as Clarification Agreement to the main registered lease deed dated 12.08.1978 was executed on 02.09.1978 mainly incorporating two clauses firstly, the renewal of lease deed and the second clause was that private passage to respondent No.1s bounded land behind the land in question.
Provided if it is required to be renewed by Lessee then possession shall number be given.
The stamp paper for the written agreement dated 02.09.1978 was purchased by respondent No.1 who got it typed and signed after fully understanding the same, as admitted by her in her deposition.
After expiry of the lease, the appellant, as per the terms of the renewal agreement dated 02.09.1978, gave a numberice through registered post to respondent No.1 on 28.05.1993 for execution of a fresh lease deed renewing it for a further period of 15 years.
