##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

I. CR-9771-2025

Date of decision: 23.12.2025

Jasvir Singh . . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Davinder Singh . . . . Respondent

****

II. CR-9773-2025

Jasvir Singh . . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Davinder Singh . . . . Respondent

****

III. CR-9782-2025

Jasvir Singh . . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Hardeep Kaur . . . . Respondent

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

This common order shall dispose of all three Civil Revisions, as

titled above, since they have been filed by the same petitioner against

similarly worded orders passed by the learned trial Court in three separate

suits for recovery.

2. Civil Suit No. CS-384-2020 was instituted by Davinder Singh

seeking recovery on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 01.06.2017. Civil

Suit No. CS-1084-2020 was also filed by Davinder Singh for recovery on the

strength of a pronote and receipt dated 01.05.2019. Civil Suit No. CS-385-

2020 was instituted by Hardeep Kaur, wife of Davinder Singh, for recovery on

the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 20.06.2017. All three suits have been

filed against the same defendant, namely Jasvir Singh, who is the petitioner

before this Court.

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 15:20:03 :::

CR-9771-2025

CR-9773-2025

CR-9782-2025

3. In all the suits, the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant had

borrowed money on different dates and executed the respective pronotes

and receipts in acknowledgment thereof. On failure of repayment, decrees

for recovery were sought. The defendant contested all the suits by denying

execution of the pronotes and receipts and alleging that the documents were

forged and fabricated in collusion with the marginal witnesses.

4. All the suits are being tried simultaneously by the same Court.

The plaintiffs closed their evidence on 04.07.2025. The statement of the

defendant was recorded on 27.08.2025. Thereafter, the defendant moved

applications in all the cases seeking a direction to send the original pronotes

and receipts to the Government Press, Nasik, for determination of the exact

age and printing year of the revenue stamps affixed thereon, purportedly to

establish fabrication of the documents.

5. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned

trial Court, vide similarly worded orders dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P17),

dismissed the applications observing that the same were filed at a belated

stage i.e. after closure of plaintiffs’ evidence and recording of the defendant’s

statement, and appeared to be filed intentionally just to delay the

proceedings.

6. Assailing the said orders, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that once execution of the pronotes and receipts has been denied,

the Court was duty bound to permit all possible modes of proof, including

expert opinion regarding the age of the revenue stamps.

7. This Court does not find any merit in the above contention.

8. At the outset, it is apposite to note that the burden of proof

under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act squarely lies upon the

party, who asserts a fact. While the initial burden to prove execution of the

pronote and receipt rests upon the plaintiffs, once execution is denied, the

defendant who alleges forgery is required to substantiate such plea by

Page 2 of 4

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 15:20:04 :::

CR-9771-2025

CR-9773-2025

CR-9782-2025

leading cogent defence evidence. The Court is not obliged to assist a party in

collecting evidence to prove its defence.

9. The applications moved by the petitioner are, in substance, an

attempt to invoke expert evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence

Act. It is well settled that expert evidence is only advisory in nature and does

not override substantive evidence already on record. More importantly, the

power to obtain expert opinion is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court

must be satisfied that such opinion is necessary for a just decision of the case.

10. In the present ca