Civil Revision No.1924 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 29, 2011. Civil Revision No.1924 of 2011 Tarlochan Singh ..Petitioner Versus Manish Goel ..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.A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendant-petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the trial Court whereby, in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against him (petitioner) for recovery of Rs.82,000/- i.e Rs.60,000/- as principal amount and Rs.22,000/- as interest thereon, on the basis of pronote and receipt, the defendant-petitioner has been directed to adduce his entire evidence at his own responsibility. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the records of the case, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by Civil Revision No.1924 of 2011 the trial Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner made an application praying for examining some official from Nasik Government Press to know the date of issuance and date of printing of revenue ticket affixed on the pronote and receipt dated 21.3.2005. The instant suit was filed on 11.4.2007 and was fixed for evidence of the defendant-petitioner when the aforesaid application for examining some officer /official from the Government Press, Nasik, was made. In case the petitioner wanted to examine some competent authority of Government Press, Nasik, who could compare the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote and receipt in question and verify the date of printing and date of issuance of such stamps, he ought to have filed an application in this regard immediately when the suit was fixed for his evidence. It having not been done, it is clear that the defendant-petitioner was adopting dilly dallying tactics to delay decision in the suit. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was justified in directing the defendant-petitioner to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility. Dismissed. Dated: March 29, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE