CHATURBHUJ SAHU Vs. DIBAKAR MALLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's case is that on 1 -11 -62 Defendant took a loan of Rs. 240/ - from him stipulating to pay interest at twelve percent per annum. He executed the promissory note (Ex. 1) in evidence of the loan. Defendant denied loan and the execution of the pronote. He pleaded that he had given a blank paper with thumb marks by way of collateral security as he was a bhag tenant under the Plaintiff. The promissory note was affixed with a revenue stamp of one anna. Admittedly by the date of the promissory note, ten paise revenue stamp was in vogue and one anna revenue stamp had no legal sanction. The learned S.C.C. Judge dismissed the suit holding that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped, and, as such, was inadmissible under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Holding further that even secondary evidence as to the contents of the document was inadmissible, he dismissed the suit without recording any finding whether the promissory note was genuine or whether any loan was advanced there under. Against this judgment dismissing the suit, the civil revision has been filed.

(2.) THE following questions arise for consideration:

(3.) SECTION 36 of the Stamp Act prescribes that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be caned in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.