RAJAMMA Vs. G C VENKATAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed OS. No. 195 of 1958 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, for recovery of money due to her from the respondent on a promissory note for a principal sum of Rs.4000. When the same was first sought to be put in evidence, its reception was not only objected to orally but a separate application also was filed by the defendant-respondent against its reception In answer thereto, the plaintiff contended that the document was sufficiently stamped The Subordinate Judge, without going into the question immediately, as he should have done postponed decision and marked the promissory note subject to objection and proceeded to record other oral evidence relating to the same. Ultimately, at the stage of the disposal of the suit, he held that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped and dismissed the suit Upon appeal, the District Judge has confirmed. the said decree

(2.) In this second appeal, two arguments are addressed: Firstly, it is stated that because the document had been admitted, it was no longer open to the defendant to question its admission at any subseouent. stage of the litigation. Secondly, it is contended that the matter is governed bv the proviso to S.34 of the Mysore Stamp Act and not bv the proviso to S.35 of the Indian Stamp Act, and thar because the former does not make anv reference to a promissory note as totally and absolutely inadmissible even upon payment of penalty, the promissory note should have been permitted to bp exhibited at least on payment of penalty.

(3.) In support of the first contention, reliance is placpd upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Javer chand v Pukhraj Surana, AIR. 1961 SC. 1655. to the effect that where a question as to admissibility of a document of the nature now under reference arises, the Court should decide it then and there the moment the document ir tendered in evidence and that "once the Court rightly or wongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed". But there is no scope to apply these observations to the facts of this case because this was not a case of actual admission of the document in evidence, whether right or wronp, but of a deliberate choice on the part of the Subordinate Judge to postpone decision to a subsequent stage. Clearly therefore, the document cannot be regarded as having been admitted in evidence so as to attract the provisions of S.36 of the Central Act.