Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALDEV SINGH versus SURJIT SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baldev Singh v. Surjit Singh - CR-5514-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8437 (12 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No. 5514 of 2006

Date of Decision: 19.10.2006

Baldev Singh

...Petitioner.

Versus

Surjit Singh

...Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for setting aside order dated 15.5.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala vide which the application for sending the pronote and the receipt dated 25.4.1999 to Government Printing Press, Nasik for examination and report has been dismissed.

The trial court while dismissing the application of the petitioner has noted as under:-

"There is no plea in the contention because the revenue stamp issued by the Govt. Press for earlier could be used for executing the document. Had it been the case of the defendant that the revenue stamps circulated subsequent to the execution of the pronote and receipt have been used, there might have been logic in the contention.

Instead application has been filed simply to delay and prolong the matter, as such, instant application fails and is ordered to be dismissed. At this stage, it has come to my notice that a revenue stamp of just 20 Paise has been affixed on the receipt whereas proper revenue stamp of Re.1/- should have been affixed. The receipt pronote being insufficiently stamped is impounded and the plaintiff is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.9/- as penalty forthwith in Govt. Treasury."

No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the order dated 15.5.2006 warranting interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

October 19, 2006 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

gbs JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.