Ranawat, J.—This is an application in revision under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated the 9th March 1950 holding that the document which was the basis of the suit was not a pro-note but an agreement. He therefore ordered the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and on payment of such stamp duty held that the document was admissible into evidence. The plea of the petitioners in this case is that the lower court was wrong in holding that the document was not a pro-note. According to him the requirements of sec. 2 (22) of the Jaipur Stamp Act are satisfied in this case as regards the document which is the basis of the suit and it is contended that the document ought to nave been held to be a pro-note. This objection was raised by the defendant in the lower court and was disallowed.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party in this revision that under sec. 36 of the Jaipur Stamp Act this question cannot be re-agitated in revision that the document in question is inadmissible in evidence. Sec. 36 of the Jaipur Stamp Act lays down that "where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission sha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document