HARI CHAND Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 15.10.1998 vide which the applications of the petitioner for sending the pronote and receipt to the Director, Government Printing Press, Nasik for ascertaining the age of the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote and receipt dated 15.6.1993 was dismissed by the trial Court. The application was contested by the plaintiff and the impugned order was passed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that according to evidence on the record, the stamps affixed on the pronote were brought by the petitioner himself and he has also deposed to this effect. But this is a matter of evidence and it cannot be said at this stage of the case whether the stamps were brought by the petitioner or not i.e. the matter left to the court to decide after the parties bring evidence on this point.

(3.) I do not find that any harm will come to any party regarding examination of the age of stamps affixed on the pronote and receipt. A party coming to the court must have feeling of satisfaction that he has not been deprived of the opportunity to bring out a particular fact on the record. Interest of justice demand that such a request should not be declined on the ground that the case is at the arguments stage. It is also necessary to do so for the just decision of the case. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside the trial Court is directed to send the pronote and receipt to the Director, Government Printing Press, Nasik to determine the age of the stamps affixed on the pronote and receipt. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4.8.1999.