Gurbax Rai Majithia, J. - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge whereby the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2680/ - with interest was decreed.
(2.) The facts : The Respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the Plaintiff) advanced a loan of Rs. 1950/ - to the Appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the Defendant) on the basis of pronote dated February 12, 1973. The loan was not repaid when the Defendant was called upon to pay the same necessitating the filing of the suit. The Defendant contested the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff was a money lendor and no licence for lending money have been obtained by him and that the promissory note was not properly stamped. Both the courts below found that the loan was advanced and that the pronote and the receipt were validly executed by the Defendant. However, it was urged before the first Appellate Court that the pronote was insufficiently stamped. The same argument has been re -iterated in this Court in the second appeal. The learned Counsel submits that the pronote was chargeable with additional duty of ten paise and this was to be paid by affixing an additional stamp bearing inscription "Refugee Relief" -vide Sec. 3(A) of the Stamps Act and 3(A) of Act No. 44 of 1971. Since the additional stamp was not affixed on the pronote, the pronote was inadmissible in evidence. The submission is devoid of merits. This matter is no more res -integra and it has been settled in Jagmail Singh v/s. Gajju Singh, 1978 R L R 131 that a pronote which was otherwise valid was not required to further bear any refugee relief stamp and the suit could not be thrown out on this score alone. A Single Judge of this Court after examination of the statutory provisions came to the following conclusion in that case: A perusal of the provisions of Sec. 3 -B would reveal that it expressly exempted instruments covered by Article 49 from the purview of the provisions of Sec. 3 -B. Article 49 refers to the promissory notes and a pronote is also a promissory note. So, it has to be held that the promissory note was not to bear the 'refugee stamp'. That means that the 'refugee stamp' borne by the pronote was unnecessary and by virtue of its remaining uncancelled, it can merely be said that the pronote, in question, did not bear the stamp in law. But then the pronote can at best be considered to be not bearing the stamp which it otherwise was not required to bear. Thus a pronote otherwise bearing the requisite stamp duly cancelled, has to be considered as duly stamped, and, therefore, to be exhibited in evidence. It is not disputed that the pronote otherwise bore the stamps of requisite value.
(3.) I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge . The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed;;