CR-4241-2018 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4241-2018 Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Kulwant Singh (Since deceased) through LRs ...Pe((oner Versus M/s Kewal Krishan and Company and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the pe((oner. Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The pe((oner is the defendant in Civil Suit No.187 of 2014 (tled ‘M/s Kewal Krishan and Company vs. Kulwant Singh’, ins(tuted under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery on the basis of a pronote and receipt alleged to have been executed on 07.02.2011. Kulwant Singh having expired, his legal representa(ves were impleaded on record. In the wri<en statement, the defendants denied the execu(on of the pronote and receipt and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. Upon comple(on of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. The plain(ff concluded his evidence and the case was therea?er fixed for the evidence of the defendants. At that stage, the defendants moved an applica(on (Annexure P-5) praying that the disputed pronote and receipt be sent to the Security Prin(ng Press, Nashik, for verifica(on of the revenue stamps affixed thereon. It was pleaded that the plain(ff might have procured blank signed pronotes during the period when deceased Kulwant Singh used to sell his agricultural produce through the plain(ff and that old revenue stamps had subsequently been affixed thereon to fabricate the document. It was, therefore, prayed that the Security Prin(ng Press be directed to disclose the period during which the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4241-2018 [2] revenue stamps had been printed. 3. By the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 (Annexure P-7), the learned trial Court dismissed the said applica(on. By the same order, the evidence of the defendants was also closed. Aggrieved thereof, the present revision pe((on has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the pe((oner contends that examina(on of the revenue stamps was essen(al for arriving at the truth, as the age of the stamps could have demonstrated that the pronote was not executed on the date alleged by the plain(ff. It is further argued that the trial Court was not jus(fied in discharging DW-Surender, an official summoned from the Municipal Commi<ee, who had failed to produce the relevant record, and consequently in closing the evidence of the defendants. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plain(ff supports the impugned order and submits that the applica(on as well as the conduct of the defendants were rightly appreciated by the trial Court and that no interference is called for in exercise of the supervisory jurisdic(on of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the par(es and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere. 7. The principal defence raised by the pe((oners is that the pronote is a fabricated document. However, the applica(on seeking examina(on of the revenue stamps does not disclose how the proposed exercise would have any material bearing on the adjudica(on of the controversy. Even assuming that the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote had been printed prior to the date of the alleged execu(on of the document, such a circumstance, by itself, would not establish that the pronote is forged or fabricated. Revenue stamps remain valid for use irrespec(ve of the date on which they were printed, and there is no legal YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4241-2018 [3] requirement that a document must necessarily bear revenue stamps printed contemporaneously with its execu(on. 8. Significantly, during the course of hearing, a copy of the disputed pronote was produced before this Court. A bare perusal thereof reveals that the thumb impression of the deceased Kulwant Singh appears across or immediately a?er the affixa(on of the revenue stamps. Thus, even if the revenue stamps had been printed much earlier, that fact would not advance the defence of the pe((oners unless there was material to show that the thumb impression itself had been procured on a blank document or that the document had been subsequently manipulated. The proposed inquiry regarding the date of prin(ng of the revenue stamps, therefore, lacks relevance to the real controversy and would not assist the Court in determining the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed pronote. 9. Equally devoid of merit is the challenge to the closure of the defendants' evidence. The impugned order records that when DW-Surender had earlier appeared, he categorically stated that the record sought by the defendants was voluminous and could be traced only if the defendants supplied the relevant par(culars, including the date of transac(on and the name of the concerned farmer. The learned trial Court accordingly granted opportunity to the defendants to furnish the requisite par(culars. Despite repeated opportuni(es, no such informa(on was supplied. 10. It is well se<led that while a party is en(tled to a fair opportunity to adduce evidence, the corresponding obliga(on to diligently prosecute the proceedings also rests upon that party. A witness cannot be expected to search voluminous official records in the absence of basic iden(fying par(culars. Once the defendants themselves failed to furnish the necessary details despite direc(ons of the Court, they cannot legi(mately contend that the witness ought to have been repeatedly summoned or that the proceedings should have remained pending indefinitely. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4241-2018 [4] 11. The learned trial Court has further no(ced that the defendants had already availed as many as eight effec(ve opportuni(es to lead their evidence. Except for the evidence sought to be produced through DW- Surender, the oral evidence of the defendants already stood concluded. In these circumstances, the trial Court was fully jus(fied in declining further adjournments and in closing the evidence. The order reflects a proper exercise of judicial discre(on intended to prevent unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit. 12. The jurisdic(on of this Court under Ar(cle 227 of the Cons(tu(on is supervisory in nature. Unless the order of the subordinate Court suffers from patent illegality, jurisdic(onal error or manifest perversity resul(ng in failure of jus(ce, interference is unwarranted. The impugned order neither discloses any such infirmity nor can it be said that the discre(on exercised by the learned trial Court is arbitrary or capricious. 13. Consequently, finding no illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 28.05.2018, the present revision pe((on is dismissed. 15.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document