IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL REVISION NO.4495 OF 2012 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 1

st AUGUST, 2012

Maya @ Maha Singh

…. Petitioner

Versus

Krishan Chand & another

…. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * * *

Present :

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CM No.18812-CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case

Defendant-Maya @ Maha Singh by filing this revision petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged order dated

30.05.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Kaithal, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-5 moved by

defendant-petitioner for sending the impugned pronote and receipt to Central

Laboratory, Delhi to determine the age of ink of writing by pen and thumb

impressions.

CR No.4495 of 2012 (O&M)

- 2 -

Respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit against defendant/petitioner

vide plaint Annexure P-2 alleging inter alia that the defendant on 19.06.2008

took advance of `2,50,000/- from the plaintiffs and executed impugned

pronote and receipt for the same.

Stand of defendant in his written statement Annexure P-3 is that

he as farmer had been selling his agricultural produce at the shop of

plaintiffs/commission agents till the year 2006. The defendant denied having

executed the impugned pronote and receipt. He alleged that he had no dealing

with the plaintiffs in the year 2008. He also denied having taken the advance

on 19.06.2008.

In application Annexure P-5, the defendant alleged that the

plaintiffs have misused relationship of principal and agent and used the thumb

impressions of defendant on blank pronote and from the age of the ink, it will

be clear whether the plaintiffs have misused their position and played any

fraud with defendant or not.

Plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P-6 controverted the averments

made in the application.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dismissed

the application of defendant who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to

challenge the said order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned pronote-cum-

receipt is required to be sent to Laboratory for determining age of ink of

writing as well as thumb impressions so as to prove the version of the

CR No.4495 of 2012 (O&M)

- 3 -

defendant and to disprove the version of the plaintiffs. The contention cannot

be accepted. The stand taken by defendant in application Annexure P-5 that

plaintiffs have misused the relationship of principal and agent and have used

the thumb impressions of defendant on blank pronote and from the age of ink,

it will be clear whether plaintiffs have misused their position and played fraud

with the defendant or not, has not been taken in the written statement either

directly or impliedly. It has been wrongly asserted in application Annexure P-

5 that defendant has taken this defence (in written statement). However, no

such defence has been taken in the written statement. In the absence thereof,

application moved by the defendant on the basis of aforesaid assertion has

been rightly dismissed because the said assertion is beyond the pleadings.

Consequently no purpose would be served by sending the pronote-cum-receipt

to laboratory for determining age of ink of writing and thumb impressions.

The defendant in his written statement nowhere pleaded that his thumb

impressions had been obtained on blank pronote while he used to sell crops at

the shop of the plaintiffs.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition.

Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, perversity

or jurisdictional error. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the

impugned order by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingl