Civil Revision No. 3922 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3922 of 2011 Date of Decision: 7.7.2011 Jaspal Singh …Petitioner Versus Smt. Sonia …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P3) whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, has declined prayer of the petitioner/defendant to send pronote and receipt to the Government Press, Nasik, for determining the age and the date of issuance of the stamp paper and the revenue stamp. The case of petitioner is that the plaintiff had obtained his signatures in the year 1996, which have been used on the pronote and the revenue stamp. The trial Judge, vide order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P3) has declined the prayer of the petitioner by observing as under:- "...Heard and considered. Since it is to be proved by the evidence of the defendant that the alleged Civil Revision No. 3922 of 2011 2 pronote and receipt in question were obtained by the plaintiff in the year 1996 and not in the year 2007. Even if after sending the said pronote and receipt to the Govt. Press Nasik, it is ascertained that pronote and receipt and the revenue stamps were printed in the year 1996, there is no bar in using the same in the year 2007. Defendant already examined his Document Expert and he could have obtained the opinion from the said Expert about the age of pronote and receipt and the revenue stamps and sending of pronote and receipt and revenue stamp to the Govt. Press Nasik is not necessary for the just decision of the case. Hence, the application is dismissed..." No fault can be found with the observation and finding of fact returned by the trial Court as the stamp issued in the year 1996 can be used in the year 2007. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had signed the stamp paper and revenue stamp which were issued lateron. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 7, 2011 “DK”