Ganga Bishan vs Mohd. Abdul Aziz

Siadat Ali Khan, J.—This is revision petition No. 310. Register No. 4 of 1952-53. The Munsiff Court, Chinnur, by order dated 23-1-1953, decided issue No. 3 holding the promissory note on which the suit was founded admissible and directed adduction of evidence for the decision of the other issues. This revision petition is directed against this order. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties. I record my opinion below.

Apparently as the decision is of an issue merely, no revision petition can lie u/s 115, Indian Civil P, C. as it is not "a case decided". This revision petition is, therefore, liable to dismissal on this point merely, but the learned advocate, Shri J. V. Narasinga Rao, for the revision-Petitioner argued that the decision of the issue involves the decision of the whole case and, therefore, a revision petition lies. He argued further that the case involves interpretation of certain parts of the Hyderabad Stamp Act No. 4 of 1331-F. which have general application and shall, therefore, be decided. In my opinion, as the learned trial Court has directed that evidence should be adduced evidently decision of issue No. 3 does not involve decision of the case and the revision does not appear to be competent. Moreover, the question of the sufficiency of the stamp can be taken up in appeal. Thus, very clearly, this revision petition is not at all competent. Still, as the admissibility of the promissory note on the ground of sufficiency of stamp duty is an important question of general application and has been argued before me. I may address myself to its decision.

The promissory note is of the value of Rs. 2.000/- and it is stamped with an anna stamp. The question is whether it is sufficiently stamped. The date of the promissory note is 10th Khurdad 1358-P. The Hyderabad Stamp Act No. 4 of 1331-P has been amended twice. The first amendment was by the Hyderabad Stamp Act (Amendment) Regulation No. 15 of 1357-F. Section 4 of this Regulation directed that the schedule to the 1331F. Stamp Act should be omitted and the new schedule provided by the amending Regulation should be substituted. The relevant portion of the Schedule to 1331-F Act was as follows:

Article 37 - PROMISSOBY NOTE: } Same Stamp as is provided for a Bill of Exchange by Article 9 having regard to its nature.

And Article 9 - Provided that: BILL OF EXCHANGE: When payable on demand.} 1 Anna. When payable otherwise than on demand but not more than one year after date or sight.} (a Schedule is provided by which the stamp on a note of Rs. 2,000/. come to Rs. 1.80)

The first amendment by Regulation No. 15 of 1357F. kept the wording of Article 37 on promissory note but Article 9 of the Regulation was differently worded in this way that the portion (a) was omitted and portion .(b) was framed as portion (a) with the same wording, namely, "When payable otherwise than on demand but not more than one year after date or sight."

It should be noted that the suit promissory note is of the value of Rs. 2,000/- and as its date is 10th Khurdad 1358-F. and as the amending Regulation was promulgated from 6th Aban 1357F. it is the amending Regulation No. 15 of 1357F. that is applicable. The learned advocate for the revision Petitioner argued that as CI. (a) of Article 9 has been omitted, the conclusion of the learned trial Judge that one anna stamp is sufficient is evidently erroneous; that the stamp duty under the Regulation for promissory note of Rs. 2,000/-being Rs. 1-8-0, the promissory note should have been stamped with the stamps of Rs. 1-8-0 and that, as it was not so stamped it should have been held inadmissible u/s 33, Stamp Act, for want of sufficient stamp duty.

Before expressing my opinion on this argument, I would describe the second amendment to 133 1F. Stamp Act. This was made by Regulation No. 14 of 1359P. and published in the Government Gazette of 16-1-1950. The date of its coming into force was fixed to be 25-1-1950. Article 35 provides for the stamping of promissory notes and runs as follows:

PROMISSORY NOTE

(a) When payable on demand - (i) When the amount or value does not exceed Rs. 250/ ; } 0ne anna.

(ii) When the amount or value exceeds Rs. 250 but does exceed Rs. 1,000/-; } Two annas.

(iii) in any other case. } Four annas.

(b) When payable otherwise than on demand. } The same duty as a Bill of Exchange (No. 9) when payable otherwise than on demand but not more than one year after date or sight.

Article 8 of this Regulation No. 14 reads as follows:

9 BILL OF EXCHANGE: (a) Where payable otherwise than on demand, but not more than one year after date or sight. } Schedule...Rs. 2 /- on the amount of Rs. 2,000/-.

It will be seen that the duty on a promissory note has been changed from what it was under the Act 4 of 1331-F by the amending Regulations Nos. 15 of 1357F and 14 of 1359F. It was one a under the Stamp Act No. 4 of 1331F. whereas it was different under Regulation No. 15 and under Regulation 14, 4 annas or 2 rupees for a promissory note of Rs. 2,000/- where payable otherwise than on demand and within a year of date or sight. I am not concerned with the Regulation No. 14 as the promissory note under consideration is before its promulgation in January 1950. The only Regulation that applies is Regulation No. 15 and the question is whether the argument of the learned advocate for the revision-Petitioner that as CI. (a) of Article 9 has been omitted, the stamp duty should nave been Rs. 1-8-0 for the promissory note of the value of Rs. 2,000/- under consideration. The learned trial Judge has held that CI. (a) of Article 9 is obviously inapplicable inasmuch as when read with Article 37, it relates to a promissory note which is payable otherwise than on demand. The promissory note under consideration is payable on demand and, therefore, he has come to the conclusion that it does not come under the provisions of this Article 9. I see no reason why I should differ. Evidently, there is no provision regarding a promissory note which is payable on demand and I cannot attach to it the Schedule in the amended Article 9 when CI. (a) deals with notes payable otherwise than on demand. It should be noted that there is a Clause (b) also to Article 9 but it is not. relevant for our purpose as it relates to payment after a year. In the circumstances, there appears to be no force in the contentious of the learned advocate.

His last contention was that having regard to the fact that all promissory notes are payable on demand and the wording of Article 9 in the Regulation No. 14 speaks of Bills payable otherwise than on demand, I should hold that it does not apply to promissory notes payable on demand. But evidently, there are promissory notes which are not payable on demand, e. g., a promissory note payable on a specific date, or after a specified period or within a certain time is one payable otherwise than on demand and to such promissory note, Article 9 read with Article 37 will be applicable. The Hyderabad legislature contemplates such promissory notes as are not payable on demand in its Article 35 (b), and it is about that in the later Regulation of 1359F. the same schedule as that of Bill of Exchange mentioned in Article 9 is made applicable. The contention, therefore, that all promissory notes are payable on demand is not correct.

As already stated, I am to form an opinion on the express wordings of Article 37 read with Article 9 of the Regulation No. 15. Article 37 provides same duty as is provided for a Bill of Exchange in Article 9. Thus Article 9 becomes relevant & Article 9 as formulated contemplates only Bills of Exchange or promissory notes payable otherwise than on demand. It is evident, therefore, that the Legislature omitted to legislate about a Bill of Exchange or promissory note payable on demand. I would, therefore, hold that there should be no duty whatsoever on them. Article 9 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act corresponds to Article 13 of the Indian Stamp Act. Clause (a) of Article 13 was omitted by the Indian Finance, Act 1927 and it was held in Stamp Act, In the matter of In Re: Stamp Act, ''. that:

Clause (a) of this Article 13 under which one anna was chargeable on a bill of exchange payable on demand was omitted by Section 5 of the Indian Finance Act, 1927 (V of 1927) with effect from 1st of July 1927. Such a bill if executed on or after that date is, therefore, free of stamp duty. As a demand draft drawn by a bank on its branch payable on demand is a bill of exchange, it is, exempt from stamp duty by virtue of the abovementioned omission.

There is nothing to prevent me from holding similarly. The Bills of Exchange or promissory notes, payable on demand executed between the dates of the first amendment in 1357F, and the second amendment in 1359P, will be free from the one-anna stamp duty prescribed under the 1331F., Stamp Act. Thus, there is no substance in this revision-petition and it is dismissed with costs.