K SEETHAMMA Vs. N NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the Judgment in S.C.No.12 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

(2.) The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by him to recover an amount of Rs.l537/-being the principal and interest due thereon on the basis of promissory note Ex.A-1 dated 27-11-1990. The defendant contended that Ex.A-1 is not supported by any consideration. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and they proved the execution of the promissory note Ex.A-1. The lower Court ultimately held that the plaintiff advanced the amount and simultaneously executed Ex.A-1 which forms part of the same transaction. This finding is not challenged. However during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the defendant-Judgment-Debtor contended that Ex.A-1 is insufficiently stamped. The amount advanced by the plaintiff is Rs.1200/-. However, on the promissory note 0.20 ps. revenue stamp was affixed. As per the Stamp Act 0.20 (sic. 25) Ps. revenue stamp is not affixed. Taking this fact into consideration and also the ratio of the decision laid down in Bollam Venkataiah vs. Venumuddala Venkata Ramana Reddy, the lower Court dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, present revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he did not dispute that the Ex.A-1 is insufficiently stamped. However once the document is marked as exhibit and tendered in evidence it is not open to the parties to raise any objections. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Pilla Narasimhasivamy Patrudu & others vs. Bank of Baroda to support his contention. There cannot be any doubt on the proposition of law set out in the above decision. This ratio is relevant in support of other documents. But in the present case, the document in question being a promissory note, the reasoning given in the above decision is not applicable. The lower Court held that it is not disputed that loan is advanced simultaneously with the execution of a promissory note and the transaction forms part of the same action and the plaintiff can sue only on the promissory note. The learned Counsel for the defendant relied on the decision in Bollam Venkataiah vs. Venumuddala Venkata Ramana Reddy (supra), which has a direct bearing upon the facts of the instant case. In this decision the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs. Thadwarthi Balakotiah is follow; The learned Principal District Munsif by relying on the Judgment in Bollam Venkataiah vs.Venumuddala Venkata Ramna Reddy (supra) wherein it was hold that a suit based on not duly stamped pronote is not maintainable dismissed the suit. It is well settled that when the promissory note is insufficiently stamped it could not be looked into for any purpose. The Full Bench held: