Nachhattar Singh vs Hari Chand

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This revision petition is against the order dated 14.09.1994 whereby the petitioner''s application for getting the stamps affixed upon the pronote and receipt examined from Government Press, Nasik, has been declined. Notice of motion was issued by the Court subject to petitioner''s undertaking to bear the entire expenses for sending the pronote for examination at Nasik. Pursuance to the notice issued by the Court, respondent put in appearance.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties today. It is the case of the petitioner that the trial Court for no valid reason has declined the petitioner''s application for getting the document examined from the government press at Nasik and that too on the ground that such a request has been made at a belated stage. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this could hardly be a ground to decline such a reasonable request especially when the petitioner is prepared to bear all the expenses. This is being seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who has made reference to the application filed by the petitioner in this regard. According to learned counsel for the respondent, it is the case of the petitioner that stamps affixed on the pronote and the receipt are earlier to the date of execution of the aforesaid documents and so has argued that no useful purpose would, be served in sending these documents for examination at Nasik.

I find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner in his application dated August 24, 1994 has specifically stated that in the present case the stamp date, time and year are of old time. It has also been stated that old revenue stamps have been affixed upon the pronote. This plea by itself negatives the stand of the petitioner. There is no legal bar in using the stamps of the earlier year for executing a pronote or any such document. Otherwise too, as the evidence has been led by the respective parties and the case is at the arguments stage, I find no ground to allow the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.