LAWS(CAL)-1955-8-51

SHAIKH AHAJUDDIN MOLLA Vs. KHARAM ALI MOLLA

Decided On August 26, 1955
Shaikh Ahajuddin Molla Appellant
V/S
Kharam Ali Molla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant before me was the Defendant in a suit brought by the present Respondent for recovery of a sum of Its. 600 on account of a loan, advanced by the Respondent to the Appellant. Along with the plaint, a document was filed in support of the Plaintiff's case of loan, which document was described as an "on demand promissory "note." As a promissory note, however, it was insufficiently stamped and the learned Munsif, having held that the suit was a suit for recovery of the dues on a promissory note, came to the conclusion that it must fail as the insufficiently stamped promissory note could not be used in evidence.

(2.) On appeal, however, the learned District Judge has reversed the decision of the learned Munsif upon the view that the suit, on the plaint as it stands, is a suit for recovery of a loan independently of the promissory note, or, in other words, that it is a suit on the original consideration, and, accordingly, it is clearly maintainable in law and, further, that the document in question is not really a promissory note under the Stamp Act but is a bond within the meaning of that statute, and, accordingly, it should be impounded and, after realisation of the deficit stamp from the Plaintiff, it should be allowed to be used in evidence. That had actually been done by the learned Munsif at a preliminary stage before him (though, at the trial, the learned Munsif took a different view), when the impugned document was held to be a "bond" and it was impounded and deficit stamp and penalty were duly realised from the Plaintiff. It was, however, not admitted in evidence so as to attract Section 36 of the Stamp Act.

(3.) The learned District Judge has, accordingly, set aside the decision of the learned Munsif and sent back the case to him for determination of the issues between the parties and for final disposal of the suit in accordance with law in the light of his judgment. Against this order of remand, the present appeal has been filed by the Defendant.