MANGILAL Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs revision filed under Section 115 C. P. C. against the order dated 1. 4. 1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali whereby while deciding issue No. 3 as preliminary issue, it was held that suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 6. 8. 76 for recovery of Rs. 83,500/- on the basis of a letter dated 28. 10. 1973. The defendants No. l and 2 resisted the suit and filed their separate written statements on 6. 10. 79 and 25. 2. 1977 respectively stating that accounts have been settled on 27. 10. 93 and nothing subsists as there is no dealing between the parties. The defendants also raised a preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable as the document is not properly stamped. The learned trial court framed as many as five issues on 3. 1. 1981 including the issue No. 3, which runs as under: " Whether the suit document not being properly stamped is inadmissible in evidence?"

(3.) MR. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit document is a letter by which certain amount was to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant which carries interest also and at the most that can be construed as an undertaking given by the defendant to pay the certain amount or as a letter for an agreement. He has also contended that since the impugned order affects the final decision of the suit, the same can be examined in revisional jurisdiction. He has relied on Shekh Mohd. Vs. Mohd. Passa (2), Kundanmal Vs. Nand Kishore (3), Nanga Vs. Dhannalal (4), Shiv Raj Vs. Ram Swaroop. (5) and Potula Subba Rao Vs. G. Ganga Rao (6)