S. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.
1. This Revision Petition is directed against an order of the District Munsif of Paramakudi declining to return two promissory notes which were the subject-matter of the suit before him for filling up the name 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 filling up the name and it is the petitioner's case that he was authorised to fill in his name at any time that he chose; but due to a mistake he omitted to fill in his name in the promissory notes before instituting the suit thereon. The suit was filed against the legal representatives 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 in the blanks and re-present the same into Courts
2. 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 that section were to be applied to this case, the petitioner will have the 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 would put an end to that right; the authority is a statutory one and also 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 the District Munsif's 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 notes 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.
3. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.