CR No. 1508 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1508 of 2011 Date of Decision: 04.03.2011. Joginder Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Nachhattar Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs Nachhattar Singh and Prem Singh have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.9.2003. Petitioner-defendant No.3 had placed reliance on agreement to sell dated 2.8.2003 executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in his favour. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by defendant No.3 and 4 alleging therein that the stamp papers on which the agreement to sell dated 2.8.2003 was executed, were printed by the Govt. Printing Press, Nashik much after 2.8.2003. Vide impugned order dated 19.2.2011, the application to find out the genuineness of the stamp papers, was allowed and it was ordered that the original agreement in a sealed envelop be sent to Govt. Printing Press Nashik along with requisite charges, at the expenses of plaintiffs CR No. 1508 of 2011 -2- to report as to when the stamp papers were made available to the public, on which the agreement to sell in question had been scribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court instead of calling for the report should have sent a commission to Nashik so that the petitioner could have got an opportunity to check the veracity of the report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Sunil Kumar Masih versus Lal Chand, 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 597, wherein it was held as under:- “ I do not subscribe to the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. The defendant has not taken any steps so far for summoning some official of the Govt. Printing Press, Nasik. He should have taken these steps. If the official of Nasik Press does not turn up in the court, the petitioner may again approach the trial court with a similar request. The suit was instituted in the year 1993. In these circumstances, there was a natural anxiety on the part of the trial court to dispose of the suit as early as possible in spite of the fact that seven years were taken at the first instance by the plaintiff. With regard to the allegation that the has forged the pronote, the petitioner can examine an Handwriting Expert, to prove his assertion. For the time being, the game of the petitioner is only to stay the proceedings." After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I CR No. 1508 of 2011 -3- am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The plaintiffs have taken up the specific plea that the stamp papers, on which the agreement to sell dated 2.8.2003 had been scribed, were made available to the public much later. The only way to ascertain as to whether the stamp papers had been made available to public before 2.8.2003 or thereafter, is to seek report from the Govt. Printing Press, Nashik. The trial court could have sent a commission to Govt. Printing Press, Nashik but the procedure adopted by the trial court also cannot be said to be illegal. Hence, there is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. The impugned order thus, does not called for any interference. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 04, 2011 Gurpreet