M.P. RM. Irulandi Mudaliar vs Syed Ibrahi and Others

S. Ramachandra Iyer, J.—This revision petition is directed against an order of the District Munsiff of paramakudi declining to return two

promissory notes which were the subject matter of the suit before him for filing up the names of the payee. The promissory notes were executed by

one. Muhammad Ibrahim for sums borrowed at Rangoon. They are duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian stamp act. The

promissory notes, however, did not bear the name of the payee; a space was left in blank for filing up the name and it is the petitioner'' that he was

authorised to fill in his name at any time that he chose; but due to mistake he omitted to fill in his name in the promissory notes before instituting the

suit thereon. The suit was filed against the legal representative of the executant Muhammad Ibrahim as he had died by then. The petitioner realising

that the payee''s name had not been filled up applied to the court to return the two promissory notes to him to enable him to fill the blanks and

represent the same into court

Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that where a promissory note is signed and delivered to another person on a paper, properly

stamped, leaving blanks the person to whom the promissory note is delivered will prima facie have authority to make the document complete. If the

section were to be applied to this case, the petitioner will have authority to fill in his name and what he wants now to do is simply to exercise his

power under that provision. It is not contended that if the petitioner had the authority of putting his name the death of Muhammad Ibrahim s a

statutory one and alone one coupled with an interest. The death of the person giving the authority cannot affect the right.

But whatever that may be, it is unnecessary to decide here whether in the circumstances of this case the petitioner had authority statutory or

otherwise to fill up the blanks. That question can be agitated by taking an issue in the suit. At the present moment justice requires that the petitioner

should be allowed to fill in the name in the promissory notes. This he will be allowed to do in the presence of the Head clerk of District Munsiff

court at a time appointed by him for the purpose; the Head clerk will add an endorsement on the note that the name of the payee is inserted on the

date on which it is so done. This will not preclude the respondents from raising the contention that the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence

for want of proper stamp or that there were circumstances in the case to show that the petitioner had no authority.

The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.