S. DASARADHA RAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 1/plaintiff filed suit - O. S. No. 43 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Kodad, Nalgonda district, against the petitioner/ defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,600/- contending that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 7,440/- and Rs. 5000/- from the second respondent under two different pronotes and paid only Rs. 3,300/- and that the respondent No. 1 was holder in due course. During the course of trial, when the first respondent wanted to mark the documents, the petitioner took objection stating that as the documents are not stamped, they are not admissible in evidence. The Court below held that these two documents are promissory notes and directed the first respondent-plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on them. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

( 2 ) MR. M. Rajamalla Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the two documents being pronotes cannot be admitted in evidence, even after paying necessary stamp duty and penalty in view of Section 35 of Stamp act. In order to determine the controversy, first the nature of the document has to be determined. The doc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document