THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1437 OF 2024

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an impugned order dated 05.03.2024 on an application made by the defendants (respondents herein) for de-exhibiting the promissory notes dated

12.04.2015, marked as Ex.A1.

2. The Trial Court allowed the respondents’/defendants’ application and de-marked Ex.A1 i.e., promissory notes which formed the basis of the plaintiff’s cause of action in the Suit.

3. The plaintiff (the petitioner herein) filed a Suit for recovery of an amount based on the 2 promissory notes dated 12.04.2015, Ex.A1 and Ex.A1/2.

4. The reasons given by the Trial Court in allowing the respondents’ application was premised on Sections 12 and 36 of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Trial Court agreed with the objection taken by the respondents/defendants that the promissory notes must be deemed to be unstamped documents. The Trial Court concluded that the issue of admissibility of the documents has to be decided at the stage of the application itself and relied on Sita Ram Bhama vs. Ramvatar Bhama, [AIR 2018 SC 3057] and held that the promissory notes were improperly stamped and could not be admitted in evidence.

5. The impugned order does not refer to the actual defect in the exhibits or the manner of cancellation of the stamps by way of the signatures of the respondents/defendants. The very fact that the signatures across the stamps are of the defendants should have been sufficient warning to the Trial Court to examine the matter more closely and indicate the reasons for the disability of the promissory notes from being exhibited. The Trial Court has instead relied on Sita Ram Bhama (supra) only for the proposition of unstamped documents not being admissible in evidence.

6. This Court has considered the exhibits which are on record. There is much to be gone into in terms of trial on the issue of admissibility of the said documents.

7. Moreover, a 4-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Javer Chand and others vs. Pukhraj Surana, [21961 AIR SC 1655] held that once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the Suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The Supreme Court also noted that the Courts should be cautious in such cases since the trial has proceeded all along on the basis that the document being an exhibit and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses.

8. Admittedly, in the present case, the promissory notes were initially marked as exhibits but were later de-marked by way of the impugned order.

9. It is also evident from the contentions of the parties before the Court that there is a dispute with regard to the signature on the 2 stamps. This is a matter of trial and the Trial Court could hence not have de-exhibited the promissory notes which forms the substratum of the plaintiff’s Suit, without actually examining the concerned exhibits.

10. C.R.P.No.1437 of 2024 along with all connected applications is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is set aside. The parties will be at liberty to take the point of admissibility during trial. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

19.07.2024 Note Issue CC today B/o Lrkm