NIRBHAI SINGH Vs. GURVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The successor-in-interest of the defendant has approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the order dated 21.1.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for getting the revenue stamps put on the pronote and the receipt signed by deceased-Jeet Singh examined from Security Press, Nasik, was rejected.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,42,242/-, i.e., Rs. 94,200/- as principal amount and Rs. 48,042/- as interest on the basis of alleged pronote and receipt dated 30.9.2001 against deceased-Jeet Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Written statement was filed taking a plea that the pronote and the receipt were fabricated documents Though the signatures thereon were admitted, but it was stated that the same was without consideration. In fact, one of the old signed pronotes lying with the firm, namely, M/s Nahar Singh and Sons was misused by respondent No. 1-plaintiff Deceased-Jeet Singh was selling his crops through the aforesaid firm. In fact, the plaintiff is son of Nahar Singh, the partner of firm-M/s Nahar Singh and Sons Immediately when the evidence of the defendant started, an application for getting the revenue stamps, put on the pronote and the receipt, examined from Security Press, Nasik, were filed. The same was declined by the learned court below vide impugned order holding that no specific plea had been raised in the written statement regarding the old age of the stamps and further there was no bar under the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short, 'the Act') on account of which the old stamps could not be used. It is against this order that the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation by the learned court below in the impugned order that no plea regarding the stamps being old had been taken in the written statement filed is not borne out from the record. In fact, a specific plea to that effect was raised in the written statement filed in the form of additional objections, where it was stated that respondent No 1-plaintiff had picked up one of the old signed pronotes and the receipt out of a few already lying with him, which he had refused to return to the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner-defendant. The stamps affixed on the pronote and the receipt dated 30.9.2001 are of 20 paise, which on the face of it shows that it was some old pronote, otherwise after the amendment carried out in the year 1994, revenue stamp of Re. 1/- was required to be used. He further submitted that there may not be any bar as such under the Act for using old stamps, but in case it is proved on record after the examination of the stamps and the document that the same are quite old, it will corroborate the plea raised by the petitioner-defendant to the effect that old signed document had been used. Reliance has been placed upon Kaur Chand v. State Bank of Patiala, 1990 CivCC 665and Hari Chand v. Avtar Singh, 1999 123 PunLR 739. The judgments relied upon by the learned court below in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another, 2008 2 RCR(Civ) 262and Gurcharan Singh v. Raj Krishan, 1993 1 CivCC 527 were sought to be distinguished stating that the facts in those cases were quite different and further the observations in Thiruvengada Pillai's case in fact support the case of the petitioner.