RAGHUNATH BHANDARY Vs. SEETHARAMA PUNJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in OS. No. 93 of 1969. pending in the Court of the Munsiff of Buntwal, SK. is the petitioner in this revision petition. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of amount due under a document executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. A controversy arose as to whether the document was a promissory note or a bond as defined under the Stamp Act. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a promisssory note and that of the defendant is that it is a bond. Thel trial Court on a consideration of the relevant circumstances held that the document was a promissory note and beinff duly stamped as such ordered that it should be marked as exhibit. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition should not be entertained as the decision given by the Court below is only regarding the admissibility of a document in evidence. The Court below in the present case has decided the question arising under the Stamp Act and when such a question 5s decided it has to be settled without delay in revision and cannot be kept for adjudication at a later stage. In Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, it has been laid down as follows:

(3.) The document which is under consideration is given below: The document is stamped and styled as a demand promissory note and there is an unconditional undertaking to pay and the amount is certain and the person to whom money is payable is certain.