JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Sucha Singh-defendant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to assail order dated 23.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 moved by defendant for sending the impugned pronote to Government Printing Press, Nasik to report about date of printing and sale of three revenue stamps affixed on the top of the pronote. 2. Respondent-plaintiff Joginder Pal has filed suit against defendant-petitioner for recovery of money on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 17.10.2004 allegedly executed by defendant after taking loan from the plaintiff. 3. The defendant in his written statement inter alia alleged that impugned pronote-cum-receipt is forged, fabricated and fictitious document and is inadmissible in evidence for want of affixation of proper stamps and cancellation thereof and material alterations. 4. After conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant moved application Annexure P-3 reiterating the aforesaid pleas taken in the written statement and praying that the pronote be sent to the Press for reporting date of printing and sale of the three revenue stamps in question. 5. Plaintiff resisted the application by filing reply Annexure P-4. 6. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.10.2009 dismissed the defendant’s application. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of this Court in case of Hari Chand versus Avtar Singh, 1994(4) RCR (Civil) 123, contended that the plaintiff-respondent would suffer no harm if the pronote is sent to the Press at Nasik as prayed for by the defendant-petitioner. It was also contended that alterations have been made in the pronote by affixing three revenue stamps at the top whereas there is another revenue stamp at the bottom of the pronote allegedly bearing signatures of the defendant-petitioner. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Madras High Court the case of Arumugam versus M. S. Narasaiah, AIR 1998 Madras 67. 9. Counsel for respondent-plaintiff on the other hand contended that there is no ground for sending the pronote to the Printing Press at Nasik as prayed for by the defendant-petitioner. 10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 11. 9. Counsel for respondent-plaintiff on the other hand contended that there is no ground for sending the pronote to the Printing Press at Nasik as prayed for by the defendant-petitioner. 10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 11. In the instant case, defendant-petitioner in his written statement did not even plead that the three revenue stamps at the top of the pronote have been affixed later on. Even in application Annexure P-3, no such plea has been taken by the defendant. In these circumstances, there is no ground for sending the pronote to the Printing Press at Nasik to report about the date of printing and sale of the three revenue stamps in question as there is not even an allegation that the said revenue stamps were affixed on the pronote later on. In this context, counsel for the respondent also pointed out that no such suggestion was even put to plaintiff and his witnesses in their cross-examination. Counsel for defendant-petitioner could not refer to any such suggestion in cross-examination of plaintiff and his witnesses. In these circumstances, the pronote cannot be ordered to be sent to the Printing Press at Nasik merely on the contention that the plaintiff would not suffer any harm. Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the facts of the instant case. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Defendant-petitioner has failed to make out ground for sending the pronote to the Printing Press at Nasik. Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------