1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 4-B/2009 dismissing two applications filed by the defendant/petitioner-one under section 11 of the Stamps Act read with Rules 15 and 17 of the M.P. Stamp Rules and another under Order XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 of CPC, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts is required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, suffice it to say that a suit on the basis of promissory note executed by defendant/petitioner in favour of plaintiff/respondent has been filed for relisation of a sum of Rs.41,000/-. According to the plaint averments, the defendants/petitioner executed a promissory note on 15.3.2006 for Rs.30,000/- in favour of plaintift7respondent and took loan amount of Rs. 30,000/

It was agreed between the parties that the said amount will be paid alongwith interest at the rate of two percent per annum whenever the demand is made by the plaintiff. Since the amount of promissory note was not paid, hence, the plaintiff after giving notice on 24.4.2008 to the defendant, filed the present suit for realisation of Rs. 41 ,000/-.

3. In the Court below, the impugned document of promissory note was submitted. The defendant/petitioner filed an application under section 11 of the Indian Stamps Act (for brevity, the "Act") read with Rules 15 and 17 of the M.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 (for short, the "Rules") alleging that since the pro note bears adhesive stamp, therefore the same is inadmissible in evidence and because the suit has been filed on the basis of said promissory note, the same be dismissed. An application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC was also filed by the petitioner/ defendant for framing some additional issue.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed both these applications by the impugned order.

5. In this manner, present writ petition has been filed by the defendant/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner is that since the document namely promote bears the adhesive stamp, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence and since the suit has been filed on the basis of inadmissible document, the same be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on single Bench decision of this Court in Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma, 2000 (1) MPJR 51. By putting deep dent on the impugned order of the learned Court dismissing the application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the proposed issues are necessmy for the real adjudication of the suit, therefore, the learned trial Court committed grave error in dismissing the application. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by the learned counsel that this petition be allowed.

7. Per contra. Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent argued in support of the impugned order and has submitted that since a revenue stamp has also been affixed on the impugned document of promote, even if an adhesive stamp is pasted, it cannot be said that the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence. Further it has been contended that Issues No.1 and 2 are already framed and, therefore, there is no necessity of framing any additional issues. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent further submitted that in order to delay the trial, these applications have been filed at the time of recording of evidence of the plaintiff and, hence, it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. So far as rejection of the application under section 11 of the Act read with Rules 15 and 17 of the Rules (Annexure P/6) is concerned, suffice it to say that certai