(1.) DWARKA Nath Gupta, petitioner herein has filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 8.928.00 on the basis of a document, allegedly executed by Shri Jat Mal. During the pendency of the suit, when the evidence of the petitioner -plaintiff was being led, the document was sought to be admitted in evidence but an objection was raised regarding its admissibility on the ground that the document expressed to be a Hundi was not admissible in evidence. Learned City Judge, Jammu, with whom the case was pending, vide order dated 22 -5 -1980 refused to accept the document holding the same to be inadmissible in evidence, being promissory note, as referred in the plaint. The petitioner -plaintiff filed a revision petition against this order of the learned City Judge and this Court while setting aside the order of the City Judge remanded the case back to him with the direction that the trial Court should draw up a fresh order and dispose of the objection raised with regard to the admissibility of the document in accordance with law. Learned City Judge vide his order dated 16, 9, 1983 has held the document to be a promissory note and as the same has been written on a deficient stamp paper, same was further held to be not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp duty. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner -plaintiff has come up in revision before this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question which requires determination in this case is as to whether the document which is the basis of the suit, is a promissory note or a receipt acknowledging the debt. The plaintiff in his plaint has referred to the document as promissory note but afterwards, with permission of the Court, he has amended the suit and inserted para 2(A) alleging therein that the document is not a promissory note, within the definition of the Stamp Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is at the most a receipt or acknowledgment.
(3.) THE document which has been placed on record has been signed by Jat Mal and there is stipulation in it that he has received Rs. 6, 200/ - as loan from Shri Dwarka Nath for his domestic necessity on which interest at the rate of 1% per mensum would be paid. It is further mentioned in this document that besides this hundi -receipt, no other amount was payable. "Promissory note has been defined in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as under; -