This revision petition challenged the trial Court's dismissal of an application by the defendant-petitioner to send pronote and receipt to the printing press alleging forgery. The High Court found no grounds for interference.
Revision dismissed; impugned order of trial Court upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.1154 of 2011 (O & M )
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: February 17, 2011.
Civil Revision No.1154 of 2011 (O & M )
Pal Singh ….Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kumar
..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.
MOHINDER PAL, J.
The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby his application praying for sending the pronote and receipt dated 9.1.2006 to Government Printing Press Nasik alleging that these documents are forged ones in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against him (defendant-petitioner) for
Civil Revision No.1154 of 2011 (O & M )
recovery of Rs.6,30,000/- on the basis of said pronote and receipt was dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the defendantpetitioner and going through the impugned order, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.6,30,000/- from the defendant-petitioner on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 9.1.2006, the plaintiff-respondent had closed his evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner, after leading his entire evidence, had also closed the evidence. The suit was pending at the stage of rebuttal evidence, if any, to be led by the plaintiff-respondent and for final arguments when the said application was moved by the defendant-petitioner for sending the pronote and receipt dated 9.1.2006 to Government Printing Press Nasik on the allegation that these documents were forged and fabricated. It appears that the defendant-petitioner filed the said application just to delay the decision of the suit otherwise nothing stopped him from making such application when his evidence was in progress. The trial Court was justified in declining this application of the defendantpetitioner by passing the impugned order.
Dismissed.
Dated: February 17,2011. ( MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the trial court order dismissing an application for sending documents to the press alleging forgery pending in mid-tria
Pal Singh
Ram Kumar
MOHINDER PAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
