MOTILAL AND KANKU BAI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions common questions of law and facts arise and as such they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IN civil original suits filed before the learned District Judge, Pali by the petitioners, the plaintiffs produced documents in respect of which the defendant -respondents in their written statement submitted that they were not admissible in evidence being unstamped The learned District Judge in each of the two suits, framed an issue as to whether the document in question was not duly stamped and was inadmissible in evidence? According to the plaintiffs, the documents in question were mere recipes while accord ins1 to the defendant -respondents the said documents were promissory notes or in alternative they were bonds. The trial court, after considering the matter held in each of the two suits that the documents in question were neither receipts nor promissory notes but they art bends and they could be admitted in evidence on payment of proper tamp duty and peachy : Aggrieved against the orders passed by the trial court deciding the aforesaid issue in each one of the two suits, the. plaintiffs filed revision petitions in this Court, which were dismissed by my brother Mode J., by his orders dated May 3, 1977, holding that the revision applications yare not maintainable against the decision of the that court to the effect that the documents were not stamped or inadequately stamped and were inadmissible in evidence on that ground. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Harakchand v. State of Rajasthan 1970 R.L.W. 320 was relied upon by the learned Judge in support of his aforesaid decision.

(3.) IN the circumstances is am of the view that these writ petitions.