Smt. Chand Bai and Other vs Pahlad Rai and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—Plaintiff-Respondent Pehlad Rai filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 2700/- on the basis of a pro-note executed on 27th November, 1971, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was taken as loan by the Defendants Rs. 700/- were claimed by way of interest. In the written statement, the Defendants denied the execution of the promissory note or the receipt as well as the consideration. It was further pleaded that the Plaintiff is a money lender and since he did not obtain any money-lender''s licence, he should be non-suited on that ground alone.

The trial Court found that since the pronote did not bear the necessary stamp of 10 paise with the inscription "Refugee Relief" and therefore, the pronote was inadmissible Consequently, the Plaintiff''s suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the pronote and the receipt were duly executed for consideration. As regards the stamp duty of 10 paise, the lower appellate Court relied upon the judgment of this, Court in, Jagmail Singh v. Gajju Singh 1978 Rev. L.R. 131, and came to the conlcution that no such stamp was necessary. Consequeatly, the Plaintiff''s suit was, decreed,

During the pendency of this petition, the Defendants moved Civil Misc. No. 3934-CII of 1979 in which it was prayed that against the decree of the lower appellate Court, regular second appeal was competent but inadvertently, the civil revision petition was filed and, therefore, the same be treated as Regular Second Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the judgment relled upon by learned lower appellate Court had no bearing on the case as it was a case from the State of Haryana where as earlier the case was decided by the High Court under the Punjab Act. According to the learned Counsel, the Indian Stamp Act, in its application to the State of Haryana,was amended by Haryana Act No. 49 of 1971, Section 38 thereof did not exclude the promote from the duty of 10 paise bearing the inscription "refugee relief." Section 3-B of the Haryana Act reads as under:

3-B Instruments chargeable with additional duty-(1) Every instrument chargeable with duty u/s 3 read with Section 1-A other than the instruments mentioned in Articles No. 13, 14, 27, 37, 41, 49, 52, 53 or 62(a) shall, in addition to such duty be Chargeable with a duty of ten paise.

(2) The additional duty with which any instrument is chargeable under, Sub-section (1) shall be paid and such payment shall be indicated on such instrument by means of adhesive stamps bearing the inscription "Refugee Relief" whether with or without any other design, picture or inscription.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the additional duty chargeable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the instruments referred to therein as they apply in relation to the duty, chargeable u/s 3 in respect of those instruments.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellant, I find that the Haryana Amending Act did, not exclude the pronote from charging the extra duty of ten paise bearing the inscription "Refugee Relief". It was only under the Punjab Amending Act where the pronote was exempted from leving the duty of ten paise. After reading both the Acts, i.e. the Punjab as well as Haryana, it appears that the State of Haryana did not exclude the pronote from the duty of ten paise stamp bearing the inscription "Refugee Relief" and that being so, the judgment rendered by this Court was of no help to the Plaintiff.

Apart from that, from the perusal of the pronote, it is quite evident that the maximum stamp duty was 25 paise where as it bears stamp duty of 40 Paise., Thus, the Plaintiff had already affixed the stamp of 15 paise more though it does not bear the inscription "Refugee Relief". That being so, the objection is highly technical and on that ground alone, no interference is called for in this case.

Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.