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. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 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 defendant- petitioner 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 defendant- petitioner by passing the impugned order. Dismissed. Dated: February 17,2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE