GURANA ASIRINAIDU Vs. LENKA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision petition is at the instance of the plaintiff. He filed the suit - os No.30 of 1998 on the file of the principal junior civil judge, vizianagaram for recovery of a sum of rs.9,500/- stating that the respondents/defendant borrowed the said amount and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount on demand with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, but failed to pay the same. When the petitioner/plaintiff sought to mark the suit pro-note, the respondent/ defendant objected for the same on the ground that it was not properly stamped, and therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. Admittedly, the suit document was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper worth rs.5-00. The learned junior civil judge accepted the objection raised by the defendant and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to mark the disputed document as an exhibit on his behalf. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiff.

(2.) the contention of the petitioner/ plaintiff is that the court below has committed an error in not properly considering the relevant provisions and appreciating the contention of the petitioner and in refusing to mark the disputed document.

(3.) on the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/defendant supported the impugned order and relied upon a judgment of this court in Dinne Erranna v. Modappa, (1963) ii AnWR 198, which was referred to and relied upon by the court below.