BASHEER AHAMED Vs. RAJAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st defendant questioning the dismissal of the application filed under Sec. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act in I.A.No.42 of 2018 in O.S.No.90 of 2015 by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Villupuram, dtd. 4/2/2018.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and another, based on a promissory note dtd. 23/5/2012. The petitioner/1st defendant filed an application under Sec. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act on the ground that the promissory note that was marked as Ex.A1 is inadmissible in evidence, since the promissory note in question is not the one payable on demand and sufficient stamp duty has not been paid. The Court below on considering the contentions raised on either side, came to a conclusion that the issue that has been raised by the petitioner can be gone into while dealing with the suit. It can also be noticed that the Court below has also rendered certain prima facie findings on the promissory note. But ultimately, the Court has held that the burden of proof is only upon the respondent to prove her case and while considering the same, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the promissory note marked as Ex.A1 can be taken into consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/1st defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.