Jayawickrama Et Al V. Amarasooriya

Present: Pereira J. and Ennis J.

JAYAWICKRAMA et al. v. AMARASOORIYA

164-D. C. Galle; 11,862.

Pleading insufficiently stamped-Not rejected by Court-Presumption in favour of an adjudication as to its sufficiency-Inadvertent omission of the Court to consider question of stamp duty-Court may, return pleading for proper stamping before other side takes any steps in case-Attorney-General to take steps to recover deficiency of duty- Civil Procedure Code, ss. 46, 77-Objection not to be taken in answer as to insufficiency of duty.

When a plaint or an answer is not rejected by a District Judge under section 46 or section 77 of the Civil Procedure Code, the presumption is that the Judge has adjudicated in favour of the party who had tendered the pleading on the question as to the sufficiency of the stamp thereon. When a plaint or answer is accepted as the result of an inadvertent omission on the part of the Court to consider the question of the sufficiency of stamp duty, it may be that before any step in the regular course of procedure is taken by the opposite party the Court may return the pleading to be properly stamped; but, generally s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document