GURUNANAK MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AGENCY Vs. SITARAM SHIVHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench to answer the following reference:

(2.) Facts arising out of the reference in short are that one M/s Gurunanak Medical and Surgical Agency filed a revision before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 2-9-2008 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 47A/2007. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. The plaintiff instituted a Suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on the allegation that he had advanced a loan to the defendant on 29-11-2000 with promise of repayment upto 29-5-2001 with interest at the rate of 1.30% per month. A receipt was executed by the defendant to this effect, however, the repayment was not made. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff obtained his signature fraudulently on the alleged receipt. The defendant further pleaded that he did not borrow the amount and further raised an objection in the written statement about the admissibility of the pronote receipt on the ground that it was improperly stamped, hence, it is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31 -8-2007 holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, plaintiff filed an appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 47A/2007, which was allowed by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 2-9-2008. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit with interest. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant filed a revision before this Court, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 49/2009.

(3.) The learned counsel for revisionist before the learned Single Judge contended that Ex.P/1 is a promissory note with a special adhesive stamp without inscription of word 'revenue', hence, it is not admissible in evidence in evidence in accordance with law laid down by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ismail Khan vs. Ram Prakash Verma, 2000 2 MPLJ 104. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Ismail Khan (supra) has held as under :