GANGA BISHAN Vs. MOHD. ABDUL AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition No. 310. Register No. 4 of 1952 -53. The Munsiff Court, Chinnur, by order dated 23 -1 -1953, decided issue No. 3 holding the promissory note on which the suit was founded admissible and directed adduction of evidence for the decision of the other issues. This revision petition is directed against this order. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties. I record my opinion below.

(2.) APPARENTLY as the decision is of an issue merely, no revision petition can lie under Section 115, Indian Civil P, C. as it is not "a case decided". This revision petition is, therefore, liable to dismissal on this point merely, but the learned advocate, Shri J. V. Narasinga Rao, for the revision -Petitioner argued that the decision of the issue involves the decision of the whole case and, therefore, a revision petition lies. He argued further that the case involves interpretation of certain parts of the Hyderabad Stamp Act No. 4 of 1331 -F. which have general application and shall, therefore, be decided. In my opinion, as the learned trial Court has directed that evidence should be adduced evidently decision of issue No. 3 does not involve decision of the case and the revision does not appear to be competent. Moreover, the question of the sufficiency of the stamp can be taken up in appeal. Thus, very clearly, this revision petition is not at all competent. Still, as the admissibility of the promissory note on the ground of sufficiency of stamp duty is an important question of general application and has been argued before me. I may address myself to its decision. The promissory note is of the value of Rs. 2.000/ - and it is stamped with an anna stamp. The question is whether it is sufficiently stamped. The date of the promissory note is 10th Khurdad 1358 -P. The Hyderabad Stamp Act No. 4 of 1331 -P has been amended twice. The first amendment was by the Hyderabad Stamp Act (Amendment) Regulation No. 15 of 1357 -F. Section 4 of this Regulation directed that the schedule to the 1331F. Stamp Act should be omitted and the new schedule provided by the amending Regulation should be substituted. The relevant portion of the Schedule to 1331 -F Act was as follows:

(3.) IT will be seen that the duty on a promissory note has been changed from what it was under the Act 4 of 1331 -F by the amending Regulations Nos. 15 of 1357F and 14 of 1359F. It was one a under the Stamp Act No. 4 of 1331F. whereas it was different under Regulation No. 15 and under Regulation 14, 4 annas or 2 rupees for a promissory note of Rs. 2,000/ - where payable otherwise than on demand and within a year of date or sight. I am not concerned with the Regulation No. 14 as the promissory note under consideration is before its promulgation in January 1950. The only Regulation that applies is Regulation No. 15 and the question is whether the argument of the learned advocate for the revision -Petitioner that as Cl. (a) of Article 9 has been omitted, the stamp duty should nave been Rs. 1 -8 -0 for the promissory note of the value of Rs. 2,000/ - under consideration. The learned trial Judge has held that CI. (a) of Article 9 is obviously inapplicable inasmuch as when read with Article 37, it relates to a promissory note which is payable otherwise than on demand. The promissory note under consideration is payable on demand and, therefore, he has come to the conclusion that it does not come under the provisions of this Article 9. I see no reason why I should differ. Evidently, there is no provision regarding a promissory note which is payable on demand and I cannot attach to it the Schedule in the amended Article 9 when CI. (a) deals with notes payable otherwise than on demand. It should be noted that there is a Clause (b) also to Article 9 but it is not. relevant for our purpose as it relates to payment after a year. In the circumstances, there appears to be no force in the contentious of the learned advocate.