P.C.JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's revision petition u/s. 115 CPC against the order dated 12.12.1995 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jodhpur in civil original case No. 324/95 by which issue No. 5 regarding the nature of the document dated 1.3.1989 was decided.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner, a non-banking company, registered under Indian Companies Act, 1958 filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of the document dated 1.3.1989. The averments of the plaintiff company were that Shri Arjun Singh Solanki took a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff company. The loan was sanctioned through a cheque and the plaintiff obtained receipt of Shri Arjun Singh Solanki on the document after affixing a revenue stamp of 20 paise. The defendants who are the legal representatives of deceased Arjun Singh Solanki resisted the suit and issues were framed. Issue No. 5 was framed regarding admissibility of the above document. The defendants alleged that the above document amounts to "Bond" as defined in Sec. 2(5) of the Stamp Act and since it was not written on stamps of proper value, the same is not admissible in evidence. It was argued before the learned trial court on behalf of the plaintiff that the above document is a mere acknowledgement on receipt and since revenue stamp of 20 paise has been affixed on the document, the objection regarding admissibility in evidence was baseless. However, the learned trial Court was of opinion that the above document is "Bond". He, therefore, ordered the plaintiff to file stamp duty and penalty as required on bond within a period of one month admitting the above document in evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and non-petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to the definition of "Bond" given in Sec. 2(5) of the Stamp Act and submitted that the above document does not come within the ambit of any of the clauses of the above definition. A mere perusal of the document show that it is an acknowledgement or a receipt and since it bears the requisite value of revenue stamp, it is admissible in evidence. It appears that the learned trial Court did not even refer to the definition of "Bond" and by cryptic observation held that the above document is a "Bond". Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kundanmal v. Navalkishore, AIR 1994 Raj. 1, Taxmaco Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. V. Ghanshyam Das and Ors., 1995(2) WLC 99 and Mangilal v. LR's of Lal Chand, 1995(3) WLC 191 : RLW 1995(1) Raj. 231.;