AMBICA CHARAN NANDY Vs. KALIPADA BHATTACHARJYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned. Vakil for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the opposite party, I think, this Rule must be discharged. The ground taken was that the Small Cause Court below was in error in not admitting in evidence a promissory note payable on demand which was executed for a sum of Rs. 272 and executed after the Stamp Act of 1923, came into force by which the stamp of 2 annas was payable on the handnote on the ground that it is not admissible in evidence because the promissory note bora a stamp of 1 anna. It is argued that this case is governed by the Validating Act XI of 1926. It appears, however, that the Act XI of 1926, has no reference to a case where a promissory note was not stamped with a stamp of the value required by law in force at the time the promissory note was executed. It is not intended to validate cases where the stamps were insufficient. But it was intended to validate cases where the promissory note bore sufficient stamp but adhesive stamp inscribed for postage. The preamble to the Act shows that it became expedient to provide for the validation of certain promissory notes stamped with post age stamps of the denomination of two or 4 annas. The Act did not intend to validate documents insufficiently stamped. In this view the Rule must be discharged. There will be no order as to costs.