SHREE VISALAM CHIT FUNDS LIMITED Vs. A YOVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT though served through Court on 30.7.1995 has not appeared either in person or through counsel. He was called a absent. Heard Mr. K. Chandramouli, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE above revision is directed against the Interlocutory Application No. 32 of 1996 in O.S. No. 174 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinance Judge, Tirunelveli. THE short facts are as follows:- One Subbarayalu was a subscriber to the chit conducted by the petitioner chit fund. He bid at the auction and as required under the Acts and Rules, he furnished sureties and offered immovables property as securities. THE said Subbarayalu along with three others as sureties executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner promising to repay the future instalments amounting to Rs. 40,000/- together with interest thereon. As the subscriber committed defaults, the petitioner company was constrained to institute O.S. No. 174/91 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli for recovery of the 34 instalments amounting to Rs. 34,000/- together with interest of Rs. 5510- After giving credit to the sum of Rs. 2,000/- received, the suit was laid for the balance of Rs. 37,610/- against the subscriber and the three sureties. THE respondent A. Yovan is one of the sureties. He was in pleaded as third defendant in the suit. THE third defendant alone took objection that the suit pronot is note properly stamped as it is payable on demand and hence, it cannot be received in evidence.

(3.) I have gone through the contents of the promissory note and also the pleadings put forth by the parties. In may opinion the suit promissory note is one payable on demand and therefore can be received in evidence. It is not one payable otherwise than on demand. Therefore, the order passed by the lower court holding that it is not properly stamped and cannot be received in evidence is not sustainable.