- (1.) Through the present petition the petitioners challenge order dated 06.05.2005, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, through which their application for referring the receipt on the pronote, which formed the basis of the suit for recovery filed against them, to the Government Security Press, Nasik (for short the 'Press') for its opinion with regard to the age of the revenue stamp affixed on the receipt thereupon was dismissed.
(2.) Vide order dated 06.09.2007, the present petition was admitted to be heard alongwith CR-5327-2006 "Balbir Singh Vs. Sat Narain which petition had been admitted to be heard by a Division Bench for the reason that the learned Single Judge found conflict on the issue of reference of the matter to the Press with regard to the age of the revenue stamp in the cases of Hari Chand vs. Avtar Singh, 1999 4 RCR(Civ) 123 and Kaur Chand vs. State Bank of Patiala, 1990 CivCC 665, wherein it had been held that on an application filed by the defendant it was necessary to send to the Press the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote and receipt in question for verification, and on the other hand, in the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. Raj Krishan,1993 CivCC 527, wherein it had been held that the sending of the pronote and receipt in question for verification was wholly unnecessary.
(3.) The facts in brief, which need to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of a pronote allegedly executed by the petitioners/defendants. After the evidence of both parties had been led and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners/defendants seeking to refer the receipt on the pronote for opinion of the Press with regard to the age of the revenue stamp affixed thereupon. The application was considered and rejected through the impugned order on the ground of delay.;