SHAH JAYANTILAL BAPULAL Vs. THAKORE BHARATSINH DAMANSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application against an order of the Civil Judge Junior Division Chhota Udepur holding that a Hundi on which the suit was based required a stamp in view of section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and holding that it was not admissible in evidence as it was not so stamped. The learned Judge held that the Hundi was a Shahjog Hundi and therefore it was not a Hundi which was payable on demand. There is nothing to show in the Hundi that it is not payable on demand. It may be payable to a respectable person but that has no reference to the question of payment on demand. The fact that the Hundi is payable to a respectable man does not prevent it from being a Hundi payable on demand unless there are words in the Hundi to show that the Hundi is not payable on demand. In the present case there are no such words. The fact that an inquiry may have to be made by the payer regarding the identity or respectability of the payee does not prevent the hundi from being one which is payable on demand. Therefore the learned Judge was in error in holding that the Hundi was not a Hundi payable on demand.

(2.) The order of the learned Judge suffers from a material error in the exercise of jurisdiction because the question of admissibility in evidence relates to a Hundi on which the suit is based and does not relate to a document which is merely relevant. There is therefore material error in the exercise of jurisdiction entitling me to interfere in this revision.

(3.) The order of the learned Judge is therefore set aside and the learned Judge is directed to proceed with the suit without holding that the suit Hundi is inadmissible in evidence. No order as to costs. Application allowed.