Dismissed

Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar, v. C.Chandresekhar Reddy

Telangana HC15 Mar 2010CRP/3489/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting a promissory note as evidence. Upholding the lower court's finding that adhesive stamps were not cancelled as required by law, the judgment held the document inadmissible under Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar, Vs C.Chandresekhar Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

+CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3489 OF 2009

¶3

% 15/03/2010

¶4

# Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar … Petitioner Vs. $ C. Chandrasekhar Reddy … Respondent

¶5

< Gist > Head Note:

¶6

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Vidyasagar ^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri Kunche Maheswara Rao

¶7

Cases referred :

¶8

- NIL -

¶9

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3489 OF 2009

¶11

Dated: 15.03.2010

¶12

Between: Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar … Petitioner

¶13

And

¶14

C. Chandrasekhar Reddy … Respondent

¶15

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶16

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3489 OF 2009

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The suit is filed for recovery of money allegedly due from the defendant/ respondent herein under a promissory note dated 5.12.2003. The defendant/respondent herein filed written statement denying the suit transaction and contending that the suit promissory note was fabricated by affixing the stamps that were removed from some office records.

¶19

While the suit is coming up for framing of issues, the defendant filed I.A.No.840 of 2008 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with a prayer to reject the suit promissory note alleging that it was inadmissible in evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is alleged that the suit promissory note was a fabricated and fraudulent document and that the adhesive stamps on the said promissory note were not cancelled as required in law and therefore it was not admissible in evidence. The plaintiff filed a counter denying the allegations and contending that the question of admissibility of the suit promissory note in evidence did not arise at that stage. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by order dated 15.06.2009 allowed I.A.No.840 of 2008 holding that the suit promissory note was not admissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶21

A Xerox copy of the suit promissory note dated 5.12.2003 has been placed before this Court and a perusal of the same reveals that the alleged signature of the defendant on the adhesive stamps affixed on it did not commence with or extend to the suit promissory note i.e.,

¶22

the paper on which the document was executed and the alleged signature of the defendant was confined only to the adhesive stamps affixed.

¶23

In the circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the conclusion of the Court below that there was no cancellation of the adhesive stamps as required under Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and consequently the suit promissory note was inadmissible in evidence was in accordance with law?

¶24

Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 runs as under: 12. Cancellation of adhesive stamps (1) (a) Whoever affixes any adhesive stamp to any instrument chargeable with duty which has been executed by any person shall, when affixing such stamp, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again; and

¶25

(b) Whoever executes any instrument on any paper bearing an adhesive stamp shall at the time of execution, unless such stamp has been already cancelled in manner aforesaid, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again.

¶26

(2) Any instrument bearing an adhesive stamp which has not been cancelled so that it cannot be used again, shall, so far as such stamp is concerned, be deemed to be unstamped.

¶27

(3) The person required by sub-section (1) to cancel an adhesive stamp may cancel it by writing on or across the stamp his name or initials or the name or initials of his firm with the true date of his so writing, or in any other effectual manner.

¶28

On a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that cancellation of the adhesive stamps affixed to any instrument chargeable with duty is mandatory so as to ensure that the same are not used again for any other purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 further made it clear that in the absence of such cancellation, the instrument shall be deemed to be unstamped.

¶29

As noticed above, in the instant case, a specific plea was taken

¶30

by the defendant in the written statement itself that the suit promissory note was a fabricated document and that the stamps affixed on it were removed from the school record where the defendant was working. The same allegation was reiterated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.840 of 2008. Having verified the suit promissory note, the Court below found that the alleged signature of the defendant on the adhesive stamps of the said document did not commence with or extend to the actual promissory note. On a perusal of the Xerox copy of the suit promissory note produced by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, this Court is also satisfied that the alleged signature of the defendant on the suit promissory note was exclusively on adhesive stamps and it did not commence from or extend to the paper of the document. Thus the plea of the defendant is found to be correct and the Court below has rightly recorded a finding that the suit promissory note should be deemed to be unstamped.

¶31

As per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, such a document becomes inadmissible in evidence. Section 35 of the Act to the extent it is necessary may be extracted:

¶32

35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc

¶33

No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:

¶34

Provided that … … … … … … … … … … … ….

¶35

However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff vehemently contended that it was not open to the Court below to arrive at such a conclusion with regard to the admissibility of the suit document even before the commencement of the trial.

¶36

I do not find any substance in the said contention in view of Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. which made it clear that the Court is

¶37

empowered to exercise the discretion and reject the documents which are considered to be inadmissible. The rejection of inadmissible documents under Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. can be at any stage of the suit proceedings, however the reasons for such rejection shall be recorded. In the instant case, a specific plea was raised in the written statement itself that the suit promissory note was fabricated by affixing the used adhesive stamps which were removed from the office record. On the basis of the very same plea, I.A.No.840 of 2008 was filed contending that the suit promissory note was inadmissible in evidence and was liable to be rejected. The said objection taken by the defendant at the earliest point of time was found to be factually correct by the Court below on verification of the document. That being so, the Court below was justified in rejecting the document in question as inadmissible in evidence. The said discretion exercised by the Court below is well within the power conferred under the law and there is absolutely no justifiable reason to hold that the order under Revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law.

¶38

For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶39

_____________ G. ROHINI, J.

¶40

Dt. 15.03.2010 gbs Note:- LR Copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs

Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar, v. C.Chandresekhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar, v. C.Chandresekhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Uma Devi Vs Y Sri Laxmi

M.A Jaya Raju Vs The Andhra Pradesh Schuduled Castes

A Ravi Kumar Vs M John Wesley

Smt M Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Sri P Venkatesham

Smt. Kharimunnisa Begum, Vs The District Coop Officer

S. Malliah Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation