Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a revision by Sahu Brijraj Sharan under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and arises in the following circumstances.

2. A suit was filed by Sahu Raghunandan Sharan against Sahu Brijraj Sharan and his son Mahesh Chandra for a sum of Rs. 5793/15/3 on the basis of a document, dated the 6th August, 1948. The suit was resisted by the defendant Sahu Brijraj Sharan, and a preliminary issue was framed whether the document in question was admissible in evidence. In that connection, the case of the applicant was that the document was a promissory note, and as it was unstamped it was inadmissible in evidence under sec. 35 of the Stamp Act. The contention of the plaintiff. on the other hand, was that the document was an agreement and could be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty. The court decided by its order, dated 1st October, 1953, that the document was an agreement, and could be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty. Thereupon, the applicant applied to the court that he was filing a revision, and that duty and penalty be not accepted and the document be not admitted in evidence, as otherwise sec. 36 of the Stamp Act would come in hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document