JOGENDRA KUMAR NAIK Vs. KANHU CHARAN MOHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 8-5-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Sambalpur in Money Suit No. 107 of 1991 thereby holding that the promissory note is insufficiently stamped and directing the plaintiff to impound the document by making payment of deficit stamp duty along with penalty by the next date.

(2.) The ground on which the challenge has been made to the aforesaid order is that the non-mention of the words "to the order or bearer on demand" is irrelevant and thus this promissory note will come under category No. (iii) of Article 49 of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act') and is thus properly stamped with 40 paise revenue stamp. It is also further alleged that the applicability of Clause (b) of Article 49 of the Act is erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the order dated 31-7-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division', Sambalpur wherein it was held that the document in question conforms the characteristic of a promissory note thereby rejecting the claim of the defendant that the document does not conform to the characteristic of a promissory note either in form or in substance.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitoner submitted that after rejection of the application dated 3-7-1995 there was no occasion on the part of the trial Court to rehear the application and pass the impugned order. In this context I may at the outset say that even if an application was not filed, it is also the duty of the Court to examine whether the document sought to be admitted into evidence was validly stamped or not. That apart my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the opposite party to the fact that another application was filed by the learned counsel for the defendant to hold that the document in question was insufficiently stamped. However, this Court is only to examine whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is correct to hold that the document in question is to be stamped as provided in Clause (b) of Article 49 of the Act in order to get the said document admitted into evidence, as question regarding whether the document is promissory note or not has already been decided by the order dated 31-7- 1995 of the learned trial Judge. For sake of convenience it ,is profitable to quote the provision of Article 49 of the Schedule appended to the Act which reads : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_138_CCC4_2002Html1.htm</FRM>