KADORILAL Vs. SUKHLAL SAJAN SINGH
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUKHLAL SAJAN SINGH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS revision petition came up for hearing before our learned brother Newaskar, J. , who was of the opinion that an important question of law was involved and that the revision should be placed before a larger Bench to be nominated by the honourable the Chief Justice. Accordingly, this case has been placed before us for disposal.
(2.) THE applicants are plaintiffs. They filed a suit, out of which this revision arises, for recovery of certain amount on the basis of two documents, styled as promissory notes. The document dated 19th June 1964 (Ex P-2) is not sufficiently stamped as a promissory note. The non-applicant, therefore, objected to its admission in evidence. The trial Court held that it was a promissory note and being insufficiently stamped was inadmissible in evidence. The applicant's contention was that it was a bond, as It was attested by witnesses and that it could be validated on payment of penalty, and that the trial Court was wrong in holding the document Inadmissible. Hence this revision.
(3.) THE document in question is on a printed form and reads thus:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.