H.R. Krishnan, J.

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 196? decided at Indore on 6-3-1969, in which the defendant-debter's objection was upheld to the effect that the adhesive revenue stamp on the pro-note 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 differences in detail.

3. In the case out of which Civil Revision No. 274 of 1970 arises the the promote for a loan of Rs.250 was stamped with an adhesive stamp valued at 10 n. P, on which the words "India" in English and "Bharat'' in Hindi appeared. The defendant objected that this instrument had been improperly stamped because the stamp used on it had not been issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh or as for that matter the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat because under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rule 1942 as it now stands a stamp issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat would be treated as equivalent in all respects to the stamp issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The defendant having raised this objection and invited the Court to reject the promote and accordingly dismiss the suit on this preliminary point, the trial court heard the parties and dismissed the objection and held that the instrument had been properly stamped. The defendant has accordingly come up in revision from the order repeating this argument.

4. A mere perusal of the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules by notification dated 26th June 1970 and published in the State Gazette dated 10 July 1970 is sufficient answer. Whether or not this position was justified before the making of this amendment, after it there is no substance in this contention because a stamp marked "India" or "Bharat" would in all respects be deemed to have been issued by the State Government. This is sufficient to dismiss Civil Revision No. 274 of 1970. As the other points in controversy in that suit have not been disposed of by the trial Court the case goes back for disposal on merits.

5. The position in the case from which Civil Revision No. 361 of 1970 arises is that the pro-note for Rs. 4,000 has been marked with a one rupee adhesive stamp issued by Madhya Bharat. Incidentally, under Art. 49 (a) (iii) a stamp for 25 N.P. would have sufficed and the parties have quite unnecessarily put a stamp of higher value. The objection raised by the defendant in the lower Court was that whereas the rules require that it should be an impressed stamp the use of an adhesive stamp though of the appropriate value is improper and the document should be rejected as having been improperly stamped. In this Court another ground is sought to be added, namely, the rules framed by the State Government in this regard are ultra vires section 10 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

6. The argument that the rules are ultra vires is altogether unacceptable because section 10 provides that the stamping should be governed by what the Act provides and where it is silent, by the rules framed by the State Government. The applicant's argument seems to be that under the Constitution the making and sale of such stamps lying in the field o