Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.K. Shrivastava and Brij Kishore Dube, JJ.
Khamir Singh —Petitioner
versus
Radheshyam Bansal —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4755 of 2009(I)
Decided on 15.9.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Shri D.D. Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri Jitendra Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Promissory note can be executed on a paper having stamp of proper valuation.
Headnote:(i) Stamps Act,1899—Section 11— M.P. Stamp Rules 1942, Rules 15 and 17—Recovery suit—On the basis of promissory note—Challenged on ground that promissory note bears adhesive stamp and as such same is inadmissible in evidence —Held—On the impugned pronote, apart from the requisite stamp of revenue, an adhesive stamp of denomination has also been pasted —Document cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence—No error committed by Court below by rejecting the application of the defendant. (Paras 9 to 12)
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 14, Rule 5 and Section 151—Framing of additional issues—Application thereof—Rejected—Challenged—Held—Issues already framed by the Court below cover the proposed issues—Application rightly rejected by Court below. (Paras 13 to 16)
Result: Application rejected.
Key Points: - A promissory note with both a proper revenue stamp and an additional adhesive stamp is not inadmissible in evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Issues already framed by the trial court cover the proposed additional issues, so the court was correct in rejecting the application for framing further issues (!) (!) (!) . - Applications filed to delay the trial after evidence recording are rightly rejected as they are dilatory and unjustified (!) (!) (!) .
What is the admissibility of a promissory note bearing an adhesive stamp when a proper revenue stamp is also affixed?
What are the conditions under which additional issues can be framed in a suit after evidence has been recorded?
What is the consequence of filing dilatory applications after evidence recording in a suit?
A.K. Shrivastava, J.—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.4B/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 C.P.C., 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 realisation of a sum of Rs.41,000. According to the plaint averments, the defendant/petitioner executed a promissory note on 15.3.2006 for Rs.30,000 in favour of plaintiff/respondent 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 per cent 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 pronote 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 C.P.C. 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 pronote 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(I) MPJR 51. By putting deep dent on the ,impugned order of the learned Court dismissing the application under Order XIV Rule 5 of C.P.C., it has been argued by the learned counsel that the proposed issues are necessary 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 pronote, 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 P6) is concerned, suffice it to
