Skip to content


Gurdev Singh Vs. Nand Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1457 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1986P& H334
ActsStamp Act, 1899 - Sections 2
AppellantGurdev Singh
RespondentNand Singh
Cases ReferredJagmail Singh v. Gajju Singh
Excerpt:
.....single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the..........act, 1899 (hereinafter called the act), as it did not bear the additional duty of the refugee relief stamp as provided by sub-secs. (1) and (2) of s. 3a of the act. in appeal, the learned senior subordinate judge exercising appellate powers affirmed the said finding of the trial court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. dissatisfied with the same, he had filed this revision petition in this court.3. this revision petitioners was admitted after notice of motion on the basis of the judgment of this court reported as jagmail singh v. gajju singh, 1978 rev lr 131.4. it has been held in the aforesaid case that a perusal of provisions of s. 3b of the act would reveal that it expressly exempted instruments covered by art. 49 from the purview of the provisions of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The plaintiff-petitioner Gurdev Singh filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 300/- on the basis of the pronote and the receipt dated July 7, 1972, executed for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with interest at the rate of 1.25 per cent. per month.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant after repeated demands, had re-paid a sum of Rs. 2,600/- as the principal and Rs. 1,100/- as the interest on June 20, 1975. Thus, then, only a sum of Rs. 300/- was due from him. In the written statement, the defendant denied the receipt of Rs. 3,000/- from the plaintiff and also the execution of the pronote and the receipt in his favour. He also denied the re-payment of Rs. 2,600/-, as alleged. The trial Court found that the pronote and the receipt, in question, were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the pronote, in question was not duly stamped in terms of S. 2(11) of the Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act), as it did not bear the additional duty of the refugee relief stamp as provided by sub-secs. (1) and (2) of S. 3A of the Act. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge exercising appellate powers affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Dissatisfied with the same, he had filed this revision petition in this Court.

3. This revision petitioners was admitted after notice of motion on the basis of the judgment of this Court reported as Jagmail Singh v. Gajju Singh, 1978 Rev LR 131.

4. It has been held in the aforesaid case that a perusal of provisions of S. 3B of the Act would reveal that it expressly exempted instruments covered by Art. 49 from the purview of the provisions of S. 3-B. Art. 49 refers to the promissory notes and a pronote is also a promissory note. So, it has to be held that the promissory note was not to bear the 'refugee relief' stamp. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, the pronote could not be held to be inadmissible in evidence in the present case for want of the 'refugee relief' stamp. Once the pronote is held to be admissible in evidence, the plaintiff suit is to be decreed.

5. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgments and the decrees of the Court below are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs throughout.

6. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //