ISHER DASS Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against the order of the learned Sub Judge, Jammu, dated 30th October, 1968 passed by him in Civil Suit No 7 of 1968 for recovery of Rs. 2174/ -brought on the basis of a pronote dated 15th April, 1965.

(2.) IT appears that before filing the afore -Said suit the plaintiff -respondent thinking that the pronote was not properly stamped took it to the Collector, Jammu for action under Section 32 of the Stamp Act. The learned Collector after considering the matter and obtaining the stamp duty with which the instrument was chargeable certified that the same "has been duly stamped." On a preliminary objection taken by the defendant in the course of his written statement that the pronote was not duly stamped and as such was not admissible in evidence the learned Sub Judge, framed the following preliminary issue: -

(3.) APPEARING for the petitioner Shri K. D. Raina has contended before me that the pronote is not duly stamped as contemplated by Section 2 (II) of the Stamp Act - Elaborating his Submissions the learned counsel has urged that the pronote bore an adhesive stamp while according to Article 49 of the Stamp Act read with Rule 4 of Chapter II of the Special laws $ It ought to have been written on a Hundi paper of the denomination of 25 paise. It is further urged that even the endorsement made by the Collector not being in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the stamp Act. the same cannot operate to validate the instrument so far as the sufficiency of the stamp is concerned, According to the learned Counsel the Collector ought to have by an endorsement made on the pronote itself certified that the instrument has been duly stamped and the endorsement made on the Hundi paper accompanying the instrument was not a literal compliance with the requirement of Law. He has also in this connection invited my attention to Rule II occurring at page 245 of the Special Laws and emphasized that the endorsement ought to have been on the instrument itself and since it has not so been made, the certificate given by the Collector is invalid and the trial court ought to have held that the instrument is not duly stamped. In support of his Contention the learned counsel has referred me to a decision of the Madras High Court reported as A. I R. 1942. Madras,1981.