LAIQRAM Vs. AGAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question, which requires decision in this revision-petition, against a decree of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, is whether the petitioner was barred from calling in question the admissibility of the document, in suit, on the ground that it was a promissory note and was not duly stamped and whether the document, in fact, is a promissory note. The question has arisen in the following circumstances: The respondent had instituted a suit, against the petitioner, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rohru, for the recovery of Rs. 1028.50 nP. principal and interest, on the allegation that the petitioner had, on 9-461, borrowed a sum of Rs. 828.50 P, from the respondent, and had executed a promissory note undertaking to pay back the amount, with interest at the rate of Re. 1 per cent, per mensem and that the petitioner had failed to pay back the amount, despite demands. The suit was filed on 7-5-63. The petitioner was summoned for 17-7-63. The Presiding Officer was on leave on that date and that the suit was taken up on 19-7-63. The petitioner did not file the written statement on that date but requested for adjournment. The request was granted and the suit was adjourned to 17-8-63. But before adjourning the suit, the Subordinate Judge examined the petitioner, under Order 10, Rule 1 C. P. C. During the course of examination of the petitioner, the Subordinate Judge impounded the document, in suit, as a bond and ordered the payment of deficiency and penalty. The petitioner filed the written statement on 17-8-63. Besides taking up other pleas (which are not relevant for the decision of the revision-petition), the petitioner had raised a preliminary objection that the document, in the suit, was a promissory note, and being unstamped, was inadmissible, in evidence. The Subordinate Judge framed necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the .parties, including an issue on the preliminary objection, regarding admissibility of the document, in suit. The burden of all the issues was on the petitioner. He led evidence. The document, in suit, was put to him during the course of his examination and was marked as X. The respondent, in his statement as a witness, had referred to the document, in suit. Its admissibility was objected to, on behalf of the petitioner. The objection was not decided, though the document was marked as Ex. PB. After the close of the case, the Subordinate Judge announced judgment. He found all the issues, on merits, in favour of the respondent. So far as the issue regarding the nature and admissibility of the document, in suit, was concerned, the Subordinate Judge held that in view of his order dated 19-7-63, impounding the document as a bond, the petitioner could not be allowed to contend that the document was a promissory note and was inadmissible in evidence. As a result of his findings, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit of the respondent.

(2.) Aggrieved by the decree, the petitioner had gone up in appeal to the learned District Judge. One of the contentions, raised in appeal, was that the document, in suit, was a promissory note and was inadmissible in evidence and that the Subordinate Judge had erred in holding that the petitioner could not call in question the admissibility of the document. The finding of the learned District Judge, on this contention, was that though the document, in suit, was a promissory note, yet as the Subordinate Judge had admitted the document in evidence as a bond on 19-7-63, the petitioner was barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, from questioning the admissibility of the document at a late stage of the proceedings. The learned District Judge affirmed the findings of the Subordinate Judge on other points and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner has come up in revision. The only point canvassed in revision was whether the petitioner was barred, under Section 36, Stamp Act, from raising the question that the document, in suit, was a promissory note and being unstamped was inadmissible in evidence and whether the document is, in fact, a promissory note. Section 36, Stamp Act reads: