P V DEVASSYA Vs. P M SHAMSUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner brought a suit on an instrument purporting to be a promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. When the instrument was sought to be put in evidence objection was taken by the first defendant that it is a promissory note falling within Art. 49 (b) of. the Indian stamp Act and that as it bears only stamp duty appropriate under Art. 49 (a) it was inadmissible. This objection was upheld by the court below by the order which is the subject of revision in C. R. P. No. 377 of 1974. THE plaintiff subsequently applied for review of the order and for admitting the instrument in evidence, but this motion was rejected by the order which is challenged in c. R. P. 749 of 1974. THE two revisions which were referred to a Bench by a learned judge were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE controversial suit document which is styled a promissory note reads thus: It was contended by the petitioner in the first place that the instrument is a promissory note payable on demand falling within art. 49 (a) and that accordingly the stamp duty which it now carries is adequate. We find it impossible to accept this contention in the face of the stipulation contained in the instrument that the amount is payable one year after. THE expression "on demand" has, unlike in ordinary parlance, a technical meaning in the law of negotiable instruments and it means "at once", forthwith" or "immediately". THE use of the expression Hcp hajw ignav imports that it is not payable at once or forthwith or immediately. It follows that the instrument is not a promissory note payable on demand and for that reason it is outside Art. 49 (a ).

(3.) THE revisions are dismissed but without costs. Dismissed. . .