MOHAMMAD Vs. SAGARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are by the respective defendants in suits based on promissory notes. They have been referred to a Divisional Bench by Tare, J. sitting as Single Judge. This departure from the established practice of getting such revision cases heard in Single Bench is due to the existence of the Single Bench ruling in Birdichand v. Akbar Civil Revision No. 11 of 196? decided at Indore on 6 -3 -1969, in which the defendant -debter's objection was upheld to the effect that the adhesive revenue stamp on the pro -note in that suit bore the word "Bharat" and did not carry any indication that it had been issued by the State Government. As Tare J. did not agree with this view he considered it necessary that the question should be answered by a Divisional Bench. As a matter of fact at about the same time as the making of this reference on 17 -7 -1970 the State Government had issued a notification that all revenue stamps used on such instruments and bearing the words "India" or "Bharat" should be deemed to have been issued by the State Government.

(2.) IN both the cases we are dealing with the mechanics of affixing stamps to pro -notes. But there are some differences in detail.

(3.) A mere perusal of the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules by notification dated 26th June 1970 and published in the State Gazette dated 10 July 1970 is sufficient answer. Whether or not this position was justified before the making of this amendment, after it there is no substance in this contention because a stamp marked "India" or "Bharat" would in all respects be deemed to have been issued by the State Government. This is sufficient to dismiss Civil Revision No. 274 of 1970. As the other points in controversy in that suit have not been disposed of by the trial Court the case goes back for disposal on merits.