TRIVEDI, J. :- Regular Suit No. 33 of 1964 has been filed by the applicant Govind Ram Paliwal against the opposite party for the recovery of Rs. 18,300/- on the basis of several Hundis. One of the pleas, on which the suit has been contested is that the Hundis are not duly stamped and as such are inadmissible and the certificate granted by the Collector under Section 32 (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, after the deficiency in stamp duty has been made good, could not make the Hundis admissible. The objection has been disposed of by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Agra as a preliminary issue under Issue No. 4. The trial Court held that the Hundis in suit were inadmissible for want of proper stamp duty and that the inadmissibility could not be cured by the certificate of the Collector purported to have been given under Section 32 of the Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved by the finding of the trial Court, the above revision was filed by the applicant. The revision was allowed ex parte by Hon'ble Takru, J., by his order dated 25th September. 1968. The opposite party Radha Mohan thereafter applied that the ex parte order be recalled and the revision restored to its original number. The application purports to have been given under Chapter IX Rule 17 (2) Rules of the Court and under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. As Hon'ble Takru, J., had retired by the time the application for setting aside the ex parte order came up for hearing, the application was disposed of by Hon'ble Misra, J., who by his order dated 30th April, 1969 set aside the ex parte order and restored the case to its original number. The revision thereafter came up for final hearing before Hon'ble K. S. Asthana, J., who was pleased to refer the case to a larger Bench. Thereafter the revision application was listed before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Jagdish Sahai and B. D. Gupta, JJ. Before the Division Bench, reliance was placed by the applicant on the case of Girdhari Das v, Jagannath, (1881) ILR 3 All 115, whereas opposite party placed his reliance on the case of N. D. Errana v. A. Modappa, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 457. It was also contended by the counsel for the opposite party that the case of Girdhari Das (Supra) was no longer a good law in view of the change made in the statutory provision of the Stamp Act. The Division Bench thought it proper that as Girdhari Das's case was a Division Bench case, this revision should be heard and decided by a Full Bench. It accordingly recommended for the constitution of a Full Bench, that is how this revision has come to us.

2. It is not disputed that the documents on the basis of which the suit is filed are bills of exchange. It is also admitted that the bills of exchange were insufficiently stamped and that the deficiency in stamp duty has been paid and the Collector has made an endorsement to that effect on the back of each Hundi. The only point on which we are addressed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the certificate by the Collector in respect of the Hundis in suit after the deficiency in stamp duty has been paid, is admissible in evidence and the finding of the Court below is erroneous in law. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on (1881) ILR 3 All 115, wherein it was laid down by a Bench of this Court that :

"It is no doubt provided in Section 39 that this section does not authorize the Collector to make any such endorsement on promissory notes, yet an irregularity in making such an endorsement, the remedy for which will be by appeal or revision by the chief revenue authority under Section

40, will not prevent the admission of the document as evidence, for Section 39 specially provides that the instrument shall on endorsement be deemed to be duly stamped."

3. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Stamp Act being a fiscal statute enacted to secure revenue for the Stat