RAJENDRA MENON, J.

( 1 ) SHRI B. D. Jain, advocate for the defendant/appellant. Heard on the question of admission of the appeal which is pending for consideration on the question of admission from 20th Octo-ber 1999.

( 2 ) THIS is defendant's second appeal un-der Section 100 C. P. C. challenging the judg-ment and decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the first Appellate Court granting decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF/respondent instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ru-pees ten thousand only) which amount is said to have been given as loan on 1st September 1995 by the appellant. The suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note (exhibit P/3 ).

( 4 ) THE only substantial question of law and the ground urged in this appeal is that a promissory note (exhibit P/3) is not properly stamped, as the promissory note is made on a adhesive stamp, it is argued by Shri B. D. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant that such a promissory note is not admissible in evidence and the learned Courts below have committed grave error in admitting the same in evidence and decreeing the suit.

( 5 ) INTER alia contending that no adhesive stam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document