The main legal point established is that a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and insufficiently stamped as required under the Stamp Act is inadmissible for any purpose, and its validation by paying deficit stamp fee and penalty is not permissible.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.58 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition, challenging the Order dated 28.02.2006 made in unnumbered petition filed by the petitioners, rejecting the plea of the petitioners to receive a promissory note in evidence. The respondent herein is the defendant in the suit.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is due under a promissory note dated 21.01.2003, said to have been executed by the respondent/defendant.

3. During the trial of the case, when P-W-1 was under examination, the disputed promissory note dated 22.01.2003, was sought to be marked in evidence on the side of the petitioners. Since it was opposed by the defendant stating that it is inadmissible, the petitioners have filed a petition (unnumbered) before the Lower Court requesting the Court to admit the same in evidence. But, the respondent herein opposed the same by filing counter. Having considered the same, the learned Subordinate Judge, by means of the impugned order, has rejected the petition, thereby refusing to admit the said promissory note in evidence. Challenging the said order of the Learned Subordinate Judge, the petitioners have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

5. Admittedly, the document, which is sought to be marked in evidence is a promissory note. But, a reading of the said document would show that it is a promissory note, payable otherwise than on demand. In respect of the said conclusion arrived at by the Lower Court, there is no controversy between the parties now. Since it is a promissory note, payable otherwise than on demand, the same shall fall within the ambit of clause (b) of Article 49 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. In this case, a perusal of the document would show that the same has not been sufficiently stamped as required under the said provision.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the document could be admitted in evidence, since the petitioners are prepared to pay deficit stamp fee as well as penalty. He would further contend that the document may atleast be admitted for the limited purpose of using the same for collateral purpose.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the document in question is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose and the same cannot be validated by paying deficit fee and penalty as envisaged in the proviso to Section 35 of the Act.

8. I have considered the rival contentions. In Thenappa v. Andiyappa reported in AIR 1971 MAD 290, a similar question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein by following the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshiammal reported in [AIR 1938 MAD 785], the Division Bench has held as follows:-

"Hence, we confirm the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge that Ex-A-1, is a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and therefore, falls under clause (b) of Article 49 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. In view of the proviso to Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the document cannot be validated by payment of penalty and the document will be inadmissible for any purpose. But, this does not conclude the matter, because the plaintiff will still be entitled to fall back on the original cause of action, namely, the prior indebtedness of the defendant".

9. Very recently in Ameer vs. M/s. Vivek Enterprises reported in [2005(1) MLJ 85], a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar situation in respect of a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand. The Division Bench of this Court has followed the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Thenappa v. Andiyappa reported in [AIR 1971 MAD 290], wherein also the Division Bench of this Co