HAZARIMAL PANAJI Vs. TILOKCHAND DEEPAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision from the Court of Small Causes, Madras. It arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 500. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant took the money from him undertaking to return it the same day, but did not do so. The plaint also referred to a promissorv note handed over by the defendant as security for the advance.

(2.) The defendant opposed the suit. His plea in defence was that, the suit was not maintainable since the promissory n0te relied on by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped.

(3.) The trial Judge accepted the defendant's plea and dismissed the suit. On application by the plaintiff for a new trial, the New Trial Bench held that although the promissory note was in sufficiently stamped, the suit was laid by the plaintiff, not on the Promissory note, but on the original cause of action. The Bench accordingly held that the trial Judge was in error in dismissing the suit as not maintainable. In that view, the Bench remitted the suit for a trial on the merits.