Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a revision by Moonlal defendant, and has arisen in the following circumstances :

2. Sampatlal filed a suit on the basis of a document which he called an agreement. Moonlal objected that the document in question was a promissory note, and as it was unstamped it could not be admitted in evidence. This dispute was considered by the Munsif and he came to the conclusion, on the 10th September 1951, that the document in question was not a pro-note, and was admissible in evidence on payment of duty and penalty. The revision is against this order.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party that the document having been admitted in evidence, it is not open to be called in question in revision on the ground that the instrument was not duly stamped, and, reliance is placed on sec. 36 of the Stamp Act. Learned counsel for the opposite party tells me that duty and penalty were paid on the 19th September, 1951, and this has not been challenged by learned counsel for the applicant. Reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court in Jahangir Khan vs. Zahur (1) (1952 R.L.W., 33.). That case is on all fours with the present case. There also the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document