KARTAR CHAND Vs. ROOP LAL
LAWS(J&K)-2010-10-38
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on
October 08,2010
KARTAR CHAND
Appellant
VERSUS
ROOP LAL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LOVE KUMAR SETHI VS. DELUXE STORES [REFERRED TO]GH MOHD LABROO VS. HABIB ULLAH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This Civil revision has been preferred against order dt. 22nd of May'10, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kathua, whereby the issue No.3, in the civil suit i.e. 'whether the D.P. note has not been sufficiently duly stamped and the said deficiency cannot be legally made, as a result of which the same is inadmissible in evidence and the suit is liable to be dismissed', has been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein and against the defendant-petitioner.
(2.)A suit for recovery of Rs.35,000/- along with interest came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioner. Written statement was filed by the petitioner resisting the suit on the ground that the promissory note dt. 23rd of Jan'06, relied upon the respondent is not admissible in evidence as it is not duly stamped and the said deficiency cannot be made up in view of the bar enacted by Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1977 (1920 A.D.). After framing the issues, the learned trial court vide its order dated 22nd of May'10, decided issue No.3, as noticed above in favour of the respondent. It is this order, which as indicated above, is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court while deciding the aforementioned issue in favour of the respondent-defendant has traveled beyond the scope of the issue by holding that the document which has been relied upon by the respondents in seeking the relief is not a promissory note. It is stated that the issue before the trial court was as to whether the D.P. note is sufficiently stamped and whether on account of said deficiency, the same is admissible in evidence. It is stated that the promissory note has been written on one rupee stamp paper whereas in terms of Article 45 Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act, the same should have been written on the stamp paper of denomination of Rs.2/-. In order to substantiate her argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in ,
(2.)A suit for recovery of Rs.35,000/- along with interest came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioner. Written statement was filed by the petitioner resisting the suit on the ground that the promissory note dt. 23rd of Jan'06, relied upon the respondent is not admissible in evidence as it is not duly stamped and the said deficiency cannot be made up in view of the bar enacted by Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1977 (1920 A.D.). After framing the issues, the learned trial court vide its order dated 22nd of May'10, decided issue No.3, as noticed above in favour of the respondent. It is this order, which as indicated above, is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court while deciding the aforementioned issue in favour of the respondent-defendant has traveled beyond the scope of the issue by holding that the document which has been relied upon by the respondents in seeking the relief is not a promissory note. It is stated that the issue before the trial court was as to whether the D.P. note is sufficiently stamped and whether on account of said deficiency, the same is admissible in evidence. It is stated that the promissory note has been written on one rupee stamp paper whereas in terms of Article 45 Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act, the same should have been written on the stamp paper of denomination of Rs.2/-. In order to substantiate her argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in ,
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.