SUNIL KUMAR MASIH Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 :-

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relies upon Hari Chand v. Avtar Singh, 1999(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 123 : 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.) 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.