// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7288/2004 Prahlad Kishan Gupta S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Gupta Versus The Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Another Date of Order ::: 23.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Deepak Saraswat, Advocate, for Shri R.K. Agrawal, Counsel for petitioner Shri J.P. Goyal, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- in the trial court against the defendant-respondent on the basis of promissory-note dated 3rd November, 1997. The defendant filed an application on 21st March, 2003 in the trial court stating therein that due to lamination of promissory- note, the back of it is not visible, therefore, lamination of promissory-note may be ordered to be removed so that he may obtain certified copy of the promissory-note. The trial court, vide its order dated 27th March, 2003, passed an order that laminated promissory-note may be sent to the copying section, which shall remove the lamination and provide certified copy of the promissory-note to the defendant. The said order was not challenged by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the // 2 // copying section made a report that there is possibility of damage of promissory-note in case the lamination of it, is removed, therefore, the matter was again heard and the trial court, vide its order dated 22.09.2004, passed an order that lamination may be removed in the presence of both the parties so it may not be damaged, and directed to comply with the earlier order dated 27th March, 2003 passed by that court. The said order dated 22.09.2004 passed by the trial court is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and, after considering the same, I find that necessary order to remove the lamination and to provide certified copy of promissory-note to defendant was passed by the trial court on 27th March, 2003 and the said order was not challenged earlier by the plaintiff, which was the original order. The order dated 22nd September, 2004, which has been impugned in this writ petition, is only a consequential order, which cannot be allowed to be challenged unless the impugned order dated 27th March, 2003 itself is challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner, which has not been challenged in the present writ petition. Even otherwise I do not find any ground to interfere in the order dated 22.09.2004 passed by the trial court. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 3 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.6290/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7288/2004 Prahlad Kishan Gupta S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Gupta Versus The Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Another Date of Order ::: 23.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Deepak Saraswat, Advocate, for Shri R.K. Agrawal, Counsel for petitioner Shri J.P. Goyal, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//