1. ' The petitioner claims to be the lessee of the disputed land for several years and in possession from 1963. He claims to have entered into an agreement on 25-12-1976 with the respondent No, 1, the owner of the disputed land for purchase of the said land for a consideration of Rs, 13,000 and Sale Deed was to be registered on 29-2-1977. He also alleges to have paid Rs, 3,500 to the respondent No,1 and the balance consideration was to be paid at the time of registeration. Before the sale-deed could be registered, the petitioner came to know that the opponent No,1 has filed a suit against the respondents Nos.2 and 3 for declaration that the sale-deed registered in favour of the respondent No,2 and in respect of the disputed land is forged and invalid. The petitioner served a notice on 31-3-1977 calling upon the respondent No,1 to execute the sale-deed. The respondent No,1 replied on 15-4-1977, expressing his inability to execute the sale-deed due to pendency of the Suit No, 51 of 1977. It is alleged that the respondent No,1 asked the petitioner to enhance the sale consideration to Rs,18,000 and when it was refused the respondent No,1 compromised the suit with the respondents Nos.2 and 3 and refused to execute the sale-deed. The petitioner therefore filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement and declaration that the agreement entered into between the respondent No,1 and respondents Nos.2 and 3 is fraudulent and forged. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed joint written statement raising objections to the maintainability of the suit and claimed to be the owner of the disputed land which according to them is in their possession. It was further alleged that the agreement dated 25-12-1976 sought to be specifically performed is a collusive agreement. The respondent No,1 also filed written statement admitting that an agreement was entered into with the petitioner but the respondent No,1 has learnt that sometime back the petitioner had given the possession of the disputed land to the respondents Nos.2 and 3 who have developed the land and are in possession thereof. It was denied that deed executed in favour of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 is false and fictitious. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial Court framed the issues. As the controversy relates to issue No,3 the same is reproduced here under:- "Wherther the sale-deed dated 1-11-1976 in respect of disputed land S.No,321/73 measuring 7-20 acres, between defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 is forged and not binding on plaintiff."
2. ' The petitioner moved an application under Order XIV, Rule 5, C.P.C. Praying for amendment of issue No,3 as the burden of proof has wrongly been placed on the petitioner. The other application was filed under Order XVI, Rule 1, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. For summoning the opponents Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the original sale-deed dated 1-11-1976 which is sought to be cancelled by the suit filed by the petitioner. The first application was dismissed on 4-7-1982 and the second application was also dismissed on 14-10-1982. The petitioner filed a Revision Application against both the orders which was dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioner has now filed this Constitution petition challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge.
3. ' So far the application under Order XIV, Rule 5 for amendment of issue No,3 is concerned, the same was misconceived. It was the plea of the petitioner in the suit filed by him that sale-deed dated 1- 11-1976 in respect of the disputed land between the respondent No,1 and respondents Nos.2 and 3 is forged and not binding on the petitioner. The plea raised by the petitioner should be proved by him affirmatively, and the entire burden is upon him to show that the sale-deed is forged, invalid and not binding. No exception can be taken to the order dismissing this application.
4. ' The petitioner filed application under Order XVI, Rule 1, C.P.C. Alleging that after framing the issues the petitioner submitted the list of documents and list of witnesses, but the respondents Nos.2 and 3 did not produce the original sale-deed dated 1-11-1976. In these circumstances, it was pleaded that names of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 may be allowed to be added in the list of witnesses. It has further been stated that as it was expected that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 will file the sale- deed in the ordinary course, their names were not included in the list of witnesses. The object of this application, therefore, seems to be to ensure the production of sale-decd dated 1-11-1976. Mr. Jamali the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the production of sale-deed is necessary for determination of suit, the application was bona fide. The application was rejected by learned trial Court on the ground that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are party to the suit and they will themselves appear to depose to the facts of their case and the sale-deed being a public document its true copy can be obtained. The anxiety of the petitioner to obtain the original sale- deed seems to be genuine because in the certified copy signature of the parties would not appear, and, it is the signature of the parties which is challenged to show that the agreement is forged, besides the contention that it is collusive, as well. However, whether time should be extended to allow a party to include a name in the list of witnesses is entirely within the discretion of the trial Court. Unless it is shown that such a discretion is arbitrary, perverse or has been exercised in complete violation of the provisions of law and the principles of justice no interference can be made in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction. The provisions of C.P.C. Provide for such contingency as apprehended by the petitioner. He can serve notice on the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to produce the sale-deed and in case it is not produced, the Court is entitled to draw presumption under law. The petitioner has cited a handwriting expert in his list of witnesses, and in case the respondents No,2 and 3 do not produce original sale-deed, the petitioner can produce its certified copy and the Trial Court on an application by the petitioner permit the handwriting expert to examine the record of Registrar and take photo copies of the disputed signature or thumb- impression and give his opinion about the disputed document. All these remedies are available to the petitioner and the object can be achieved without including the name of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the list of witnesses. In the circumstances it would not be proper to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. The petition is therefore dismissed.