JUDGMENT :

1. In O.S. 59/1 of 1953-1954 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Secunderabad Mallikarjunappa laid a claim for recovery of O.S. Rs. 12657/- on foot of three documents dated 8th August 1950, which according to the plaintiff were hundies. Amongst others, one of the defences raised was that the suit documents were promissory notes payable otherwise than on demand and that inasmuch as they were not duly stamped, they were inadmissible in evidence on which no suit could lie. Of the seven issues adjusted in the case, the first issue was:

“Are the suit documents promissory notes?

Are they inadmissible in evidence?”

2. This issue was taken up for decision on 4th October, 1954 and the Subordinate Judge gave the finding that the suit documents were promissory notes and being insufficiently stamped were admissible to the extent of half of the amount claimed. The defendants felt dissatisfied with the order and they filed a review application on 3rd November, 1954 praying that the said documents be held to be altogether inadmissible in evidence. On a notice being issued to the plaintiff, he demurred to the maintainability of the application on two grounds namely:—

(1) the order sought