1. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2008 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.47-A/2007 E.D., whereby the first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.108/2006.

2. Brief facts leading to the present civil revision are that this civil revision was initially filed as second appeal and was thereafter converted into a civil revision by making an application for such conversion on the ground that as per the provisions contained in section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is a provision which prohibits filing of second appeal in matters having valuation upto Rs.25,000/- and therefore permission was sought to convert the second appeal into civil revision and therefore this appeal has been entertained as civil revision.

3. Though in the second appeal, as was filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had raised several substantial questions of law, namely :-

(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(I) 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 Ganpat Singh and another v. Gurucharan Singh and another [AIR 1973 MP 3] ?

but vide order dated 29.10.2010, the Single Bench of this Court was pleased to refer the above substantial questions of law to be decided by the Full Bench of the Court in view of the contradictions in the judgments rendered in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma [2000(I) MPJR 51], in which it was held that only that adhesive stamp, which bears inscription of “revenue” should be used on promissory note is a good law or not in view of the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganpat Singh and another v. Gurucharan Singh and another [AIR 1973 MP 3]. This reference was answered by the Full Bench of this Court vide its order dated 28.2.2011 [Published in 2011(2) JLJ 138], in which the Full Bench of this Court has been pleased to answer the reference as under :-

(i) That, keeping in view the two kinds of stamps mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942, the 'special adhesive stamp' be treated as in addition to 'adhesive stamp' not opposed or in contradistinction to 'adhesive stamp' as required for promissory note.

(ii) That, word 'may' used in rule 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 is an enabling word and implies a discretion.

(iii) That, the decisions of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma [2000(I) MPJR 51] and Division Bench in the case of Khamir Singh v. Radheshyam Bansal [2011(I) MPWN 111=2010(5) MPHT 249 (DB)], are not good law in view of earlier Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of Ganpatsingh and another v. Gurucharansingh and another [AIR 1973 MP 3], and also on the basis of our findings recorded above in the judgment.”

4. Now, adverting to the facts of the case, in the suit, as was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,000/- on the strength of a promissory note, the trial Court was pleased to hold that the transaction of lending money on 29.11.2000 is since not proved, therefore, the suit was dismissed. First appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the trial Court has erred in recording a finding that the plaintiff in his cross-e