Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suit could be dismissed on the ground that the promissory note was not duly stamped and was therefore inadmissible in evidence, despite the defendant's admission of execution and the document having been marked as an exhibit.
Analysis: The defendant's written statement admitted execution of the promissory note and raised only the plea of discharge. In such circumstances, the fact of execution stood admitted and did not require further proof. The objection based on want of cancellation of the stamp under Section 12 did not avail the defendant after the document had been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit. Once admitted, its admissibility could not be re-opened under Section 36. The trial court's reliance on inadmissibility of the instrument was therefore misplaced in the light of the admission and the statutory bar against revisiting admissibility after exhibition.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit on the ground of unstamped or inadmissible promissory note was unsustainable, and the matter had to be sent back for disposal on the defence of discharge.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order of dismissal was set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where execution of a promissory note is admitted in pleadings and the document has already been received and marked in evidence, its admissibility cannot later be challenged on stamp grounds, and the dispute must be decided on the remaining defence.