KANHAIYA LAL Vs. DULICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, holding that the Shah Jog Hundi on which the suit is based is inadmissible in evidence as it is not properly stamped.

(2.) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and satisfied that the decision is erroneous.

(3.) IN an unreported decision Meghraj vs. Shivji (S. B. Civil Revision No. 105/1962 decided on 14-8-1962) referred to in Hanuman's case (3) the decision in Partab Chand Ratanchand vs. Gilbert (4) was applied even to a promissory note. Under sec. 19 of the Negotiable INstruments Act a promissory note in which time for payment is specified cannot be treated as being payable on demand. The Stamp Act does not contain an extended definition of a promissory note payable on demand. The decision in Meghraj vs. Shivji was therefore erroneous.