The admissibility of an insufficiently stamped promissory note in a summary suit under Order 37, CPC.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15. 9. 1994 passed by the Sub-Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 1077/1993 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend and thereafter passing a decree for a sum of Rs. 94,400. 00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.

( 2 ) THE respondent instituted a suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code for recovery of Rs. 94,400. 00 alongwith pendents lite and future interest. On being served with the summons of the suit the petitioner/defendant entered appearance and thereafter on being served with the summons for judgment filed an application for leave to defend alongwith an affidavit. In the said application it was alleged that the suit was liable to be dismissed as it did not conform to the mandatory provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also contended that the pronote on the basis of which the suit was filed, did not bear the signatures of the defendant and that the respondent/plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant on some papers, after obtaining the signatures of the defendant on some blank papers. The aforesaid application was taken up for consideration and after hearing arguments of the Counsel appearing for the parties the Trial Court found that the defence sought to be put up by the defendant is illusory and that the same did not raise any triable issue. The said application was, accordingly, dismissed and the Trial Court thereafter passed a decree under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code for a sum of Rs. 94,400. 00 alongwith interest.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit was not instituted in strict conformity with the provisions of Order 37, CPC. It was also submitted that the plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant on some blank papers and on the basis thereof the aforesaid recovery suit was instituted. He also submitted that for a periodical loan no suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code could be instituted. He also contended that the pronote on the basis of which the suit was instituted was also not stamped in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Indian Stamp Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that even if the instrument is not properly stamped, it could be admitted in evidence and the same could not be held to be invalid merely because the same had not been drawn up on stamp paper. He also denied the allegation of the petitioner that blank document had been signed by the petitioner at the instance of the respondent.

( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties let met consider the merits of the said submissions. It was contended that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff by presenting a plaint without mentioning therein an inscription that the suit is filed under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code immediately below the suit No. in the title of the suit. In order to appreciate the said contention I have looked into the copy of the plaint which is placed on record. A bare perusal of the same would show that the respondent/plaintiff has specifically mentioned in the cause title of the suit that the suit is one under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code and the same was mentioned immediately after staling that the suit is for recovery of Rs. 94,400. 00. That apart, in paragraph 6 of the plaint it has been stated categorically that the suit be treated, heard and tried under the summary procedure as provided for under Order 37, CPC. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid description substantially complies with the requirement as provided under Order 37, Rule 2, CPC. The said contention has, therefore, no basis and is rejected.

( 6 ) THE contention that no summary suit could be instituted for a periodical loan is also without any merit, for the present suit is based upon a pronote. Order 37, Rule 1 (2)