Suresh Gupta vs Satbir Gupta
2010 Latest Caselaw 1356 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                     Date of Reserve: February 11, 2010
                                                         Date of Order: 11th March, 2010
+ CM(M) 697/2007
%                                                                           11.03.2010
     Suresh Gupta                                                    ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate

        Versus

        Satbir Gupta                                      ...Respondent
        Through: Mr. Vinay Garg and Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Advocates


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


        JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 3rd April, 2007 passed by

learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi whereby an application of the

petitioner for sending certain receipts to India Security Press, Nasik Road for

examination of revenue stamp affixed on the receipts was dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein is the defendant before the trial court in the suit. He

summoned General Manager, India Printing & Minting Corporation of India,

Nasik Road to appear as a witness so as to see the revenue stamp on the

receipts and give evidence whether the revenue stamps pertained to the year

1997-1998. It is submitted that these receipts were false and fabricated and

if they were sent to Nasik Press, the stamp affixed on receipt shall be

examined by the Nasik Press and an opinion about the year of printing of

CM(M) 697/2007 Suresh Gupta v. Satbir Gupta Page 1 Of 2 the revenue stamp shall be given.

3. It is not in dispute that the revenue stamp does not bear the date or

year of its printing neither it was the case of the petitioner that the revenue

stamp put on the receipts was not a genuine revenue stamp and was a forged

and fabricated revenue stamp. The plea taken by the petitioner that the year

of printing of revenue stamp would prove the document to be forged is a

baseless plea since there is no restriction of using a revenue stamp of the

year 1990 in the year 1997 or 1998. A revenue stamp does not become

obsolete by passage of time. A person, who is having revenue stamps of the

year 1990 saved with him, can use the same in the year 2000 and that would

not make the document a forged document. I, therefore, consider that the

entire effort of the petitioner has been to delay the proceedings. A similar

application made by the petitioner earlier in respect of the document filed by

the petitioner himself was dismissed by the trial court.

I find that this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs

of Rs.10,000/-.

March 11, 2010                                      SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 697/2007       Suresh Gupta v. Satbir Gupta                 Page 2 Of 2