( 1 ) THIS order shall govern disposal of Civil Revision No. 1160 of 1977 (Shri kishanlal v. Kashi Prasad Jangal Prasad) also.

( 2 ) THE correctness of the view taken by Bhave, J. in Baldeodas v. Moolchand gupta, C. R. No. 646 of 1974, D/- 3-12-1975 in construing Section 13 of the indian Stamp Act read with Rule 7 (1) of the Central Provinces and Berar stamp Rules, 1942, made applicable to the whole of the State of Madhya pradesh by Taxation Laws (Extension) Act, 1957, was doubted by Tankha, J. hence this reference.

( 3 ) SECTION 13 of the Indian Stamp Act reads as under:

"instruments stamped with impressed stamps how to be written :--Every instrument written upon paper stamped with an impressed stamp shall be written in such manner that the stamp may appear on the face of the instrument and cannot be used for or applied to any other instrument. "

Rule 7 (1) of the C. P. and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942, reads as under:"7. Provision where single sheet of paper is insufficient.-- (1) Where two or more sheets of paper on which stamps are engraved or embossed are used to make up the amount of duty chargeable in respect of any instrument, a portion of such instrument shall be written on each sheet so used. "

( 4 ) BHAVE, J expressed the opinion that all stamp papers must be utilised for drawing up the instrument and part of it must find place on each sheet or paper. His Lordships said:

"the clear language of Section 13 and Rule 7 requires that all the stamp papers should be utilised for drawing up the instrument. Mere crossing of the paper or defacing the same is not enough to satisfy the requirement of law. If this is allowed, the deficit duty, when the instruments were drawn up, could be made good by adding additional stamps of the required amount subsequently and making them appear as if they were used at the time the instruments were drawn. To avoid this contingency the rule has been made very clear, and only because there are a few hard cases, a lenient view would not be warranted. "

( 5 ) SHRI J. P. Sanghi, advocate appearing for the non-applicant, submitted that in putting to literal and strict construction on the provision of Section 13 of the stamp Act read with Rule 7 of the C. P. and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942, His lordship had overlooked the authority of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel ltd. v. Dilip Construction Co. , AIR 1969 SC 1238 that the provisions of the stamp Act were not meant to arm a litigant with technicalities to defeat the claim of the opponent. This is what their Lordships said:

"the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the state on certain classes of instruments. It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponents. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue. Once that object is secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the instrument will not be defeated on the ground of the initial defect in the instrument. "

The counsel submitted that the purpose of Section 13 of the Stamp Act and even of Rule 7 of the C. P. and Berar Stamp Rules 1942, was that the instrument should be written in such manner that the impressed stamp should not only appear on the face of the instrument but it should also not be possible to utilise the same impressed stamp over again for any other instrument. The purpose would be fulfilled if the impressed stamp was can-relied by putting line across or by putting signatures thereon of the executants. The signature of a party to the instrument, the counsel said, was equally a portion of the instrument.

( 6 ) RELIANCE was placed by the counsel on the following three authorities. Placitum of each authority may usefully be cited : (i) In Narayana Reddi v. Dr. J. Sarojini Devi, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 378 the law laid is this :

"section 12 (3) was introduced to give effect to the customary wavs of cancelling Stamps obtaining in the law merchant. The true test, therefore,