KAPIL CHARAN PATNAIK AND ANR. Vs. ARTABANDHN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in both these appeals are for all practical purposes, the same and therefore they have been taken up together.

(2.) THESE appeals arise out of two different suits. Both the suits were for realisation of money on the basis of two promissory notes, both dated 3 -7 -1955. The claim of the Plaintiffs in both the suits was that these promissory notes were executed by Defendants 1 and 2 one for a sum of Rs. 1500/ - (which is the subject -matter of the suit giving rise to second appeal No. 333 of 1963) and the other for sum of Rs. 1300/ - (which is the subject matter of the suit giving rise to second appeal No. 334 of 1963). The two Courts below have decreed both the suits and hence these appeals by the common Defendants in the two suits. At the time of hearing, however, second appeal No. 333 of 1963 has not been pressed for consideration by Mr. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants -Appellants. In other words the submission made on behalf of the Appellants in this Court is confined to second appeal No. 334 of 1963. The main controversy raised in that case in the Courts below was whether the promissory note dated 3 -7 -1955 which was for a sum of Rs. 1300/ - was a genuine document or that it had been got up by the Plaintiff for the purpose of establishing his claim made in the plaint. The Defendants, in support of their plea that it was not a genuine document, had raised the contention that the date of the stamp affixed on the promissory note was not of the time when it purported to have been affixed. The Plaintiff bad, therefore, got it sent through the Court to the Stamp Expert for report as to the date of the stamp affixed on the promissory note. The stamp Expert, on an examination of the document, sent, a report that the stamp affixed on the promissory note was issued on the date as alleged by the Plaintiff. But, unfortunately, that report was not got proved by the Stamp Expert. The trial Court, therefore, did not take the report into consideration and dismissed the Plaintiff 's suit on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove that the promissory note relied on by the Plaintiff was a genuine document. In appeal, however, it seems that the document has been taken into evidence on the ground that it is a public document, and on the basis of that document the judgment of the trial Court has been reserved.

(3.) FOR these reasons, therefore, second appeal No. 333 of 1963 is dismissed. But second appeal No. 334 of 1963 is allowed and the case is sent back to the Court below for fresh hearing in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs in either of the two appeals. S.A. 333 of 1963 dismissed and S.A. 334 of 1964 remanded.