THEKEDAR ROOPA Vs. SHAH ACHALMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's civil second appeal who lost his money suit in both the courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1163.75 against the defendant in the Court of Munsif, Sirohi on May 29, 1970 on the foot of a promissory note Ex. 1. It was alleged that the defendant executed promissory note Ex. 1 for the consideration of a sum of Rs. 1000/ -. He undertook to pay the said amount with interest at rate of Rs. 6% per annum. The defendant made no payment despite notice. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 1000/ - as principal and Rs. 117.75 as interest and notice charges the total being of a sum of Rs. 1163.75. The suit was resisted by the defendant. He denied the execution of promissory note Ex. 1. A defendant was also taken that the promissory note Ex. 1 being not duly stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. Relevant issues were raised and evidence of the parties was recorded. The parties examined themselves and adduced no other evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Munsif held that the defendant had executed promissory note Ex. 1 for consideration in favour of the plaintiff. He further held that since it was not duly stamped, it was not admissible in evidence. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff went in appeal, which was heard and decided by the learned Civil Judge, Sirohi. By his judgment and decree dated July 23, 1974, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. He agreed with the trial court that since the promissory note Ex. 1 was not duly stamped, it was not admissible in evidence. Hence the plaintiff has come -up in second appeal.

(3.) IN assailing the judgments and decrees of the courts below, it was contended by Mr. Jain that the whole approach of the courts below was erroneous. Once the promissory note Ex. 1 was admitted in evidence and evidence was recorded in proof of it later on it cannot be held to be inadmissible in evidence. The suit should not have been, therefore, dismissed. In support of his contention, reliance was placed by him on Jawerchand and Ors. v. Pukhraj Surana AIR 1961 SC 1965. It was, on the other hand, contended by Mr. Singhi that promissory note Ex. 1 was not properly stamped, it should not have been admitted in evidence for any reason. 1 have taken the respective submissions into consideration.