( 1 ) THESE revisions are by the respective defendants in suits based on promissory notes. They have been referred to a Divisional Bench by Tare, J. sitting as Single judge. This departure from the established practice of getting such revision cases heard in Single Bench is due to the existence of the Single Bench ruling in birdichand v. Akbar, Civil Revision No. 11 of 1968, decided at Indore on 6-3-1969 (Madh Pra), in which the defendant-debtor's objection was upheld to the effect that the adhesive revenue stamp on the pronote in that suit bore the word "bharat", and did not carry any indication that it had been issued by the State government. As Tare, J. did not agree with this view he considered it necessary that the question should be answered by a Divisional Bench. As a matter of fact at about the same time as the making of this reference on 17-7-1970 the State government had issued a notification, 'that all revenue stamps used on such instruments and bearing the words "india" or "bharat" should be deemed to have been issued by the State Government.

( 2 ) IN both the cases we are dealing with the mechanics of affixing stamps to pro-notes. But there are some differ