VALLURU CHINALAKSHMI Vs. MAJJI DHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note dated 31-10-1999 executed by the respondent in her favour for Rs. 1,300/- agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum alleging that, in spite of her getting issued a registered notice through her Counsel demanding payment of the amount, the respondent failed to send a reply or repaid the amount due under the promissory note. Respondent filed his written statement inter alia contending that the suit promissory note is a forged document and that he never executed that suit promissory note and did not receive consideration under the said promissory note. In support of her case, the revision petitioner, besides examining herself as P.W.1, examined the scribe and attestor of the promissory note as PWs.2 and 3, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as D.W.1 but did not adduce any documentary evidence. The trial Court held that inasmuch as the revenue stamp on the suit promissory note is not properly cancelled, it is inadmissible in evidence and dismissed the suit. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that the trial Court, having admitted the suit promissory note in evidence as Ex.A. 1, was in error in dismissing the suit on the ground that it is not admissible in evidence. It is her contention that in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act when once a document is admitted in evidence it is not open to the Court to reject it on the ground that it is not properly stamped. It is also her contention that the trial Court was in error in not considering the fact that the respondent failed to take a plea in the written statement that the Ex.A. 1 is not properly cancelled and so the trial Court ought not to have entertained such plea at the time of arguments that inasmuch as the suit promissory note is not cancelled no decree can be passed basing on Ex.A.1. It is her contention that since the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly establishes the passing of consideration the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. The contention of the learned Counsel for respondent is that since the trial Court gave cogent reasons for its conclusion that the suit promissory note is not admissible in evidence there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.

(3.) It is well known that the plea of inadmissibility of a document in evidence for its not being duly stamped has to be taken before its admission in evidence. After the document is admitted in evidence, it cannot, at the time of arguments, be contended that that document is inadmissible in evidence for its being insufficiently stamped, in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act), which lays down that after an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61 of the Act, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground of its not being duly stamped. The trial Court without keeping in view Section 36 of the Act erroneously dismissed the suit on the ground that the stamp on Ex.A. 1 is not properly cancelled though a Division Bench of this Court in Penumalli Ramana Reddi v. Kanumuru Rukminiamma, 1968 (1) An. WR 221, held that after an insufficiently stamped promissory note is admitted in evidence it is not open to the High Court, sitting in appeal, to review or revise the order of the trial Court, and hold that the document is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that no decree can be passed on Ex.A.1, in view of its being insufficiently stamped is incorrect.