BOPANNA PRAKASAM Vs. MAGANTI NAGABHUSHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition I am called upon to decide the question whether the suit promissory note is admissible in evidence. The lower Court held that it was inadmissible and this petition is to revise that order of the learned District Munsiff.

(2.) The question arose in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He instituted a suit on a promissory note for Rs. 200. The defendant raised the contention that the suit note was a forgery. He also stated that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped and was therefore inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. When the case came on for hearing the defendant did not appear. He asked for an adjournment which was refused. But he did not withdraw his appearance in the case. The learned District Munsiff admitted the promissory note in evidence and decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred against this decision, but the learned Judge in appeal thought that the case was one which should have been adjourned by the learned Munsif. He therefore remanded the suit to the District Munsif giving time for the defendant to produce his evidence. When the case came before the District Munsif, the defendant pressed his objection that the suit note was inadmissible and he contended that the suit should be dismissed. As stated in the beginning a ruling was given by the lower Court accepting his contention.

(3.) In this Civil Revision Petition it is argued by the petitioner that once the insufficiently stamped promissory note has been admitted in evidence it is not open to the party concerned to raise the objection at a later stage that it is inadmissible and so the ruling of the lower Court is wrong. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act says: When an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.