KRISHNA DEVI Vs. FIRM TIKAYARAM LEKHRAJ BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order dated 2-3-1998 passed by Fourth Civil Judge Class-1, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 63-B/94.

(2.) Petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of amount against the respondents with the averment that respondent No. 1 is a proprietorship firm and respondent No. 2 is its sole proprietor. A loan of Rs. 20,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff on 9-9-91 on interest at the rate of 1.25% per month and for the aforesaid transaction a pronote was executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff. Since the amount and interest was not paid, the suit was filed. The claim of the plaintiff was denied and the defendants denied having received money from the plaintiff. The petitioner placed reliance upon a document, which is written as "Hundi". When the document was being exhibited in evidence, the defendants raised a preliminary objection that the document is a pronote and is inadmissible in evidence.

(3.) Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this document is a "Shah Jog Hundi" and it does not require any stamp. The trial Court held that the document is a promissory note and requires stamp duty under Section 49-B of the Stamp Act and the stamp affixed on the document is insufficient. The document is in the nature of promissory-note and this document cannot be impounded under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, and refused to exhibit the document.