Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1103 (PNJ)

Sunil Kumar Masih v. Lal Chand

2000-09-13

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 6.9.2000 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad, who declined the request of the petitioner to send the disputed pronote and receipt to Nasik to determine the age of the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote and the receipt, for the reasons given in paras 5 and 6, which read as under :- "5. As per perusal of the case, this civil suit was instituted on 1.9.1993 and evidence of the plaintiff in affirmative was concluded on 21.1.2000 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 24.2.2000, 16.3.2000, 31.3.2000 and 25.4.2000 for defendant evidence, then this application has been moved by the defendant. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant based on promissory note and receipt which have been marked as Ex. PB and Ex. PE respectively during evidence of the plaintiff. Both these receipts and promissory note are dated 15.9.1990. This application has been moved for sending the promissory note and receipt to the Director, Govt. Printing Press, Nasik for determining the age of revenue stamps affixed on the promissory note and receipt, these are in proforma form and filled up and thereafter alleged to have been executed by both the sides. In written statement, the defendant has alleged that receipt is a forged document. Hence by way of evidence, the defendant has to prove that document is forged one and after taking three effective opportunities for evidence, this application has been moved just to delay the proceedings of the case by the defendant. 6. Even the defendant has still to produce his evidence and in case the defendant deems it necessary that some official of the Director, Govt. Printing Press, Nasik is to be examined for this purpose he is not barred to examine any witness on this point and produce some relevant evidence if defendant desired. Further even for sending the document and receipt to the Director, Govt. Printing Press, Nasik is not necessary to adjudicate the controversy between the parties as first of all forgery of document is to be proved by the defendant, if any, by way of other evidence. Further even for sending the document and receipt to the Director, Govt. Printing Press, Nasik is not necessary to adjudicate the controversy between the parties as first of all forgery of document is to be proved by the defendant, if any, by way of other evidence. Further the present case is old case of 1993 and the application moved at this belated stage is just to delay the proceedings of this case and hence the application of the defendant is liable to be dismissed." 2. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Hari Chand v. Avtar Singh, 1999(3) PLR 739, and submits that the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded in the affirmative on 21.1.2000 and, thereafter, hardly two months were taken by the defendant to lead his evidence. The opinion of the expert with regard to the age of the revenue stamps will go to the root of the case. 3. I do not subscribe to the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. The defendant has not taken any steps so far for summoning some official of the Govt. Printing Press, Nasik. He should have taken these steps. If the official of Nasik Press does not turn up in the court, the petitioner may again approach the trial court with a similar request. The suit was instituted in the year 1993. In these circumstances, there was a natural anxiety on the part of the trial court to dispose of the suit as early as possible in spite of the fact that seven years were taken at the first instance by the plaintiff. With regard to the allegation that the plaintiff has forged the pronote, the petitioner can examine an Handwriting Expert, to prove his assertion. For the time being, the game of the petitioner is only to stay the proceedings. 4. In this view of the matter, the revision is dismissed with the observations that if the expert from Nasik does not turn up in spite of summons issued by the court, the petitioner may, again, file an application for sending the disputed pronote and the receipt to the Govt. Printing Press, Nasik. The trial court shall make repeated efforts for summoning the witness. Dasti. Revision dismissed.