Civil Revision No. 747 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 747 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.2.2010 Nirbhai Singh .. Petitioner v. Gurvinder Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Puri, Advocate for respondent No. 1. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The successor-in-interest of the defendant has approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the order dated 21.1.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for getting the revenue stamps put on the pronote and the receipt signed by deceased-Jeet Singh examined from Security Press, Nasik, was rejected. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,42,242/-, i.e., Rs. 94,200/- as principal amount and Rs. 48,042/- as interest on the basis of alleged pronote and receipt dated 30.9.2001 against deceased-Jeet Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Written statement was filed taking a plea that the pronote and the receipt were fabricated documents. Though the signatures thereon were admitted, but it was stated that the same was without consideration. In fact, one of the old signed pronotes lying with the firm, namely, M/s Nahar Singh and Sons was misused by respondent No. 1-plaintiff. Deceased-Jeet Singh was selling his crops through the aforesaid firm. In fact, the plaintiff is son of Nahar Singh, the partner of firm-M/s Nahar Singh and Sons. Immediately when the evidence of the defendant started, an application for getting the revenue stamps, put on the pronote and the receipt, examined from Security Civil Revision No. 747 of 2010 [2] Press, Nasik, were filed. The same was declined by the learned court below vide impugned order holding that no specific plea had been raised in the written statement regarding the old age of the stamps and further there was no bar under the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short, `the Act’) on account of which the old stamps could not be used. It is against this order that the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation by the learned court below in the impugned order that no plea regarding the stamps being old had been taken in the written statement filed is not borne out from the record. In fact, a specific plea to that effect was raised in the written statement filed in the form of additional objections, where it was stated that respondent No. 1-plaintiff had picked up one of the old signed pronotes and the receipt out of a few already lying with him, which he had refused to return to the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner-defendant. The stamps affixed on the pronote and the receipt dated 30.9.2001 are of 20 paise, which on the face of it shows that it was some old pronote, otherwise after the amendment carried out in the year 1994, revenue stamp of Re. 1/- was required to be used. He further submitted that there may not be any bar as such under the Act for using old stamps, but in case it is proved on record after the examination of the stamps and the document that the same are quite old, it will corroborate the plea raised by the petitioner-defendant to the effect that old signed document had been used. Reliance has been placed upon Kaur Chand v. State Bank of Patiala, 1990 Civil Court Cases 665 and Hari Chand v. Avtar Singh, 1999(3) PLR 739. The judgments relied upon by the learned court below in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 262 and Gurcharan Singh v. Raj Krishan, 1993 Civil Court Cases 527 were sought to be distinguished stating that the facts in those cases were quite different and further the observations in Thiruvengada Pillai’s case (supra) in fact support the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff submitted that even if the stamps are examined, the same will not lead the case of the petitioner to any definite conclusion. There is no definite stand in the written statement regarding this fact, which will lead to the effect that the evidence will be beyond pleadings which should not be permitted to be led at this stage. The effort of the petitioner in fact is to delay the proceedings. Once the execution of the document has been admitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, the age of the stamps will not have any effect even if old stamps had been used. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. The same Civil Revision No. 747 of 2010 [3] does not call for any interference by this Court. The judgments relied upon by the learned court below squarely cover the issue. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. As far as the observation of the learned court below regarding there being no plea in the written statement filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner is concerned, in my opinion, the same is not correct. In paragraph 2 of the additional objections thereof, it has been specifically mentioned that an old signed pronote and the receipt out of a few already lying with respondent No. 1- plaintiff was used to fabricate the document on 30.9.2001 and the stamps affixed thereon are of 20 paise denomination. As far as the stand of respondent No. 1-plaintiff regarding the effort of the petitioner being to delay the proceedings is concerned, the same is not borne out from the record. The civil suit was filed on 28.10.2004 and the stand of the petitioner is that application for getting the stamps and the document examined was filed immediately when the evidence of the petitioner-defendant started. The signatures of deceased-Jeet Singh on the document may be admitted, but still the plea which is sought to be raised by him in the written statement to prove the plea regarding an old signed document having been used by respondent No. 1-plaintiff at a later date, the examination of the stamps used thereon would certainly be a relevant piece of evidence, the effect of which the learned court below will consider after the entire evidence is led by the parties, as the stand of the petitioner is also that the revenue stamp of Re. 1/- was required to be affixed after the amendment of Entry 53 in the Schedule to the Act in the year 1994, whereas on the document in question, four stamps of 20 paise each have been affixed on the pronote and one stamp of 20 paise has been affixed on the receipt and the document is shown to have been executed on 30.9.2001. In Kaur Chand’s cse (supra), this Court permitted the parties therein to get the stamps examined through Security Press, Nasik to ascertain the year and month thereof. Similar was the position in Hari Chand’s case (supra). In Thiruvengada Pillai’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that in case very old stamp papers of different dates have been used, this may be circumstances which can be used as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity thereof, though may not be a clinching evidence. In Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra), the defendant therein having even denied the signatures on the document in question, under the circumstances this Court opined that relevance would be of examination of signatures of the person involved therein and not the stamps used on the document. Civil Revision No. 747 of 2010 [4] For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that the document in question is sent to the Security Press, Nasik for examination of the month and year of the stamps, which may enable the learned trial court to reach to a correct conclusion in the dispute considering other evidence brought on record as no prejudice as such is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff. The petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.2.2010 mk