JAHANGIR KHAN Vs. ZAHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated the 9th March, 1950 holding that the document which was the basis of the suit was not a pro-note but an agreement. He therefore ordered the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and on payment of such stamp duty held that the document was admissible into evidence. The plea of the petitioner in this case is that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the document was not a pronote. According to him the requirements of Section 2 (22) of the Jaipur Stamp Act are satisfied in this case as regards the document which is the basis of the suit and it is contended that the document ought to have been held to be a pro-note. This objection was raised by the defendant in the lower Court and was disallowed.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party in this revision that under Section 36 of the Jaipur Stamp Act this question cannot be reagitated in revision that the document in question is inadmissible into evidence. Section 36 of the Jaipur Stamp Act lays down that:

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner that in the present case this revision was filed no sooner an order was made by the lower Court and Section 36 should therefore not stand in the way of the petitioner. The counsel on the opposite side has put his reliance on the authorities in 'SATYAVATI v. PALLAYA', AIR 1937 Mad 431; 'VENKATE-SWARA IYER v. RAMANATHA DHEEKSHITAR', AIR 1929 Mad 622; 'BHUPATINATH v. BASANTA KUMARI DEVT, AIR 1936 Cal 556 and 'KRISHANA: kumajl v. MX. JAGPATI KUER', AIR 1937 Pat 73.