RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. SIBA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has filed a suit for money on the basis of two Hundis. The defendant No. 2 -- petitioner objected to the documents being taken in evidence on the ground that they are not sufficiently stamped. By the impugned order, the Court has overruled the objection.

(2.) Mr. Sachidanand Jha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that in view of the definitions of "Bill of exchange" and "Bill of exchange payable on demand" in Sections 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the Indian Stamp Act and Article 13 thereof, the hundis in question must be held to be subject to the mischief of Section 35. Alternatively, he argued that since in the hundis, the drawer and drawee are the same person, it may have to be held that they are not bills of exchange at all, but in eye of law, are promissory notes; but again in view of the provision of the Act they cannot be admitted in evidence.

(3.) Mr. Baijnath Prasad No. 2, learned counsel for the opposite party, has taken a preliminary objection on the basis of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act which reads as follows: