O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st defendant questioning the dismissal of the application filed under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act in I.A.No.42 of 2018 in O.S.No.90 of 2015 by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Villupuram, dated 04.02.2018.

2.The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and another, based on a promissory note dated 23.05.2012. The petitioner/1st defendant filed an application under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act on the ground that the promissory note that was marked as Ex.A1 is inadmissible in evidence, since the promissory note in question is not the one payable on demand and sufficient stamp duty has not been paid. The Court below on considering the contentions raised on either side, came to a conclusion that the issue that has been raised by the petitioner can be gone into while dealing with the suit. It can also be noticed that the Court below has also rendered certain prima facie findings on the promissory note. But ultimately, the Court has held that the burden of proof is only upon the respondent to prove her case and while considering the same, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the promissory note marked as Ex.A1 can be taken into consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/1st defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4.Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly raised two contentions. The first contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plain reading of the promissory note clearly shows that it is a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and hence, the stamp duty ought to have been paid under Article 49(b) Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act and whereas, the stamp that is available in the promissory note does not satisfy this requirement. In view of the same, it was contended that the document itself is inadmissible evidence for any purpose by virtue of proviso to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in P.Bency and Others vs. Martin Mary reported in 2008 1 MLJ 638.

5.The second contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a plain reading of the alleged promissory note makes it very clear that no Sale Deed was executed and there was no occasion for the petitioner/1st defendant to receive Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and hence, this can be tried atleast as a preliminary issue so that the suit itself can be brought to an end at the earliest.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The learned counsel submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable, since Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act underwent an amendment through Act 21 of 2006 and by virtue of the said amendment, the bill of exchange or a promissory note can be admitted in evidence even if there is a deficit stamp duty provided that the party is willing to pay the correct stamp duty as per the Schedule to the Act. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Neolite Polymer Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Standard Chartered Bank reported in MANU/MH/0593/2007 The learned counsel submitted that this judgment was rendered after taking into consideration the amendment that took place in the year 2006. In view of the same, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment that was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not apply to the facts of the case and the said judgment did not take into cons