KHIRODNATH GOUNTIA Vs. ARJUN PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application of the defendant under Section 155. Civil P. C. When it came up for hearing before his Lordship the Chief Justice, he directed that this revision application be heard by a Division Bench. That is how the matter is before us.

(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed Money Suit No. 8/31 of 1968 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge. Bargarh, asking for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1000/ -. In paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that on 5-2-1965 the defendant incurred a loan of Rs. 1000/-undertaking to pay by the following Chaitra Purnima the principal along with Interest and in evidence of the transaction had executed a receipt In spite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay. Therefore, the suit was instituted. The suit was transferred to the Munsif for trial.

(3.) DURING trial dispute was raised by the defendant when the plaintiff wanted the document dated 8-2-1965 to be received in evidence. The defendant took the stand that the document was a promissory note and as it had not been properly stamped it could not be received in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The learned Munsif examined the matter and held that the document was a bond within the meaning of Section 2 (5) (a) of the Stamp Act. and repelled the contention of the defendant that it was a promissory note. This revision is directed against that decision of the learned Munsif dated 27-8-1970.