Smt. Puniya Bai Vs. Smt. Vimla Yadav - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1039852
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-01-2013
AppellantSmt. Puniya Bai
RespondentSmt. Vimla Yadav
Excerpt:
w.p.no.4397/2013 01/04/2013 shri lal gyanendra singh baghel and shri lal dharmendra singh baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. challenging an interlocutory order annexure-p1 dated 11.2.2013 passed by the firs.additional district judge, hoshangabad in civil suit no.10-a/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under section 77 of the indian evidence act, petitioner has filed this writ petition. an application filed by the petitioner for taking on record statements of certain witnesses recorded in a criminal investigation under section 151 of c.p.c has been rejected and, therefore, challenge is made to the order rejecting the said prayer. petitioner is plaintiff and has filed a suit in question for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.07.2005. it is the case of the petitioner that an agreement was entered with the husband of respondent no.1 for purchase of the disputed land for a consideration of `3,60,000/-, out of which a sum of `2,86,000/- was paid to the husband of respondent no.1 and he has agreed to execute the sale-deed after the balance amount of `74,000/- is received. contending that the agreement is not being performed, the suit in question has been filed. in the meanwhile, husband of respondent no.1 has expired and she has denied the execution of the agreement by her husband. it is the case of the petitioner that during his life time, husband of respondent no.1 has lodged an f.i.r.against her in police station rampur-gurra district-hoshangabad sometimes in july, 2006 and during the investigation, statement of respondent's late husband was recorded under section 151 of c.p.c.and not petitioner wants to bring on record the said statement recorded under section 151 and as the said application for taking the statement on record is rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition. the learned court has held that a statement of dead person recorded under section 151 of c.p.c cannot be taken on record and read as evidence and as the statement recorded under section 151 is found to be irrelevant, the application for taking the statement recorded under section 151 of the respondent's husband is dismissed. in doing so, the learned court has not committed any error warranting interference by this court exercising jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution. statement of a dead person is inadmissible evidence. in the present case, even after the statement is taken on record, the author of the respondent namely husband of respondent no.1 cannot be brought into the witness box and in rejecting the application for taking the said documents on record, i am of the considered view that the learned court has not committed any error warranting interference. the petition is accordingly, dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge nd
Judgment:

W.P.No.4397/2013 01/04/2013 Shri Lal Gyanendra Singh Baghel and Shri Lal Dharmendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenging an interlocutory order Annexure-P1 dated 11.2.2013 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No.10-A/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

An application filed by the petitioner for taking on record statements of certain witnesses recorded in a criminal investigation under Section 151 of C.P.C has been rejected and, therefore, challenge is made to the order rejecting the said prayer.

Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed a suit in question for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.07.2005.

It is the case of the petitioner that an agreement was entered with the husband of Respondent No.1 for purchase of the disputed land for a consideration of `3,60,000/-, out of which a sum of `2,86,000/- was paid to the husband of Respondent No.1 and he has agreed to execute the sale-deed after the balance amount of `74,000/- is received.

Contending that the agreement is not being performed, the suit in question has been filed.

In the meanwhile, husband of Respondent No.1 has expired and she has denied the execution of the agreement by her husband.

It is the case of the petitioner that during his life time, husband of Respondent No.1 has lodged an F.I.R.Against her in Police Station Rampur-Gurra District-Hoshangabad sometimes in July, 2006 and during the investigation, statement of Respondent's late husband was recorded under Section 151 of C.P.C.and not petitioner wants to bring on record the said statement recorded under Section 151 and as the said application for taking the statement on record is rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The learned court has held that a statement of dead person recorded under Section 151 of C.P.C cannot be taken on record and read as evidence and as the statement recorded under Section 151 is found to be irrelevant, the application for taking the statement recorded under Section 151 of the Respondent's husband is dismissed.

In doing so, the learned court has not committed any error warranting interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Statement of a dead person is inadmissible evidence.

In the present case, even after the statement is taken on record, the author of the respondent namely husband of Respondent No.1 cannot be brought into the witness box and in rejecting the application for taking the said documents on record, I am of the considered view that the learned court has not committed any error warranting interference.

The petition is accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd