1. The Chief Justice.--This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a case which is under Rs. 10,000. The question, therefore is whether, under Section 109 (c) of the C.P.C. we can certify it to be a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council.
2. To quote my own words in Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi v. Tiruneelakandam Servai : AIR1928Mad282 : 'What is contemplated is a class of cases in which there may be involved questions of public importance, or which may be important precedents governing numerous other cases, or in which, while the right in dispute is not exactly measurable in money, it is of great public or private importance.' The point in dispute in this case is whether a certain acknowledgment which was given of a debt was given in order to supply evidence of such debt within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, because, if so, not having been properly stamped, it would not be admissible in evidence at all. We held, following other cases, that the question for determination was whether the dominant intention of giving that acknowledgment was to supply evidence of the debt or something else; and we held that, under the circumstances of this particular case, it was not the dominant intention and, therefore, the acknowledgment was admissible. This may be right or may be wrong in law, or it may be the right or wrong view of the facts of the case. But I cannot think that it is a case of public importance or of great private importance; nor do I think that it is an important precedent which would govern numerous other cases. The point has been decided before, and most of the cases on the subject are on the same lines as this judgment. I do not think that this is a case within the meaning of the section. If it is desired to litigate this point before the Privy Council we still have to wait until a case of sufficient magnitude and importance to make it appealable has arisen.
3. This application must be dismissed with costs.
Ramesam, J.--I agree.