S.K. Gangele, J.

1. On a reference by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench to answer the following reference:

(i) In view of two kinds of stamps described in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the M.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, whether special adhesive stamps may be treated as something in addition to adhesive stamps and not opposed or in contradistinction to adhesive stamp as required for promissory note?

(ii) Whether the word "may" in Rule 17 of M. P. Stamp Rules, 1942 is of permissive nature and not of mandatory nature?

(iii) Whether the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma: 2000 (2) MPLJ 104 : 2000(1) MPJR 51 that only adhesive stamps bearing inscription of "revenue" should be used on promissory note is not a good law in view of earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganpatsingh and Anr. v. Gurucharansingh and Anr.: AIR 1973 M.P. 3 : 1972 MPLJ 616

2. Facts arising out of the reference in short are that one M/s Gurunanak Medical and Surgical Agency filed a revision before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 2-9-2008 passed by the Court of First Additional District J