9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the insufficiently stamped pronote in evidence. 2. Entitlement to relief on the basis of the original debt. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to continue the trial of the suit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of the Insufficiently Stamped Pronote in Evidence: The central issue was whether the suit pronote, which was insufficiently stamped, could be admitted in evidence. The pronote was found to be insufficiently stamped, making it inadmissible under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The court emphasized that Section 35 creates a three-fold bar: (1) the document shall not be received in evidence, (2) it shall not be acted upon, and (3) it shall not be registered or authenticated unless duly stamped. The court rejected the argument that the admission of the pronote's execution by the appellant negated the requirements of Section 35. The court referenced multiple judgments, including a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Yasodammal v. Janaki Ammal, AIR 1968 Mad 294, which upheld the strict application of Section 35 despite admissions of execution. The court concluded that the pronote could not be admitted in evidence, nor could any relief be granted based on it. 2. Entitlement to Relief on the Basis of the Original Debt: Despite the inadmissibility of the pronote, the court considered whether the plaintiff could obtain relief based on the original debt. The defendant argued that the suit was purely based on the pronote, which could not serve as collateral security, and the plaint did not contain any alternative claim for relief based on the original consideration. However, the court found that the loan was advanced under a Hire Purchase Agreement, and the pronote was merely collateral security for this debt. The court noted that the plaintiff had implicitly pleaded an alternative case for relief based on the original debt, as evidenced by the combined reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint and corresponding paragraphs of the written statement. The court ruled that the plaintiff could pursue relief based on the original debt, excluding the inadmissible pronote. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Continue the Trial of the Suit: The appellant contended that once the pronote was deemed inadmissible, the suit ceased to fall under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit on its original side. The respondent argued for transferring the suit to a subordinate court under Section 24 of the CPC. The court agreed with the respondent, noting that the jurisdiction of a court depends on the allegations in the plaint, not the defense in the written statement. Since the plaint's averments initially brought the suit within the ambit of Order XXXVII, the suit was validly pending before the learned single Judge. The court cited a Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Shyam Nandan Sahay v. Dhanpati Kuer AIR 1960 Pat 244, which held that a suit is validly pending if the plaint's allegations give the court jurisdiction, even if later found incorrect. Consequently, the court transferred the suit to the Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Jammu for trial, as the High Court no longer had jurisdiction to continue the trial. Conclusion: The court confirmed the inadmissibility of the insufficiently stamped pronote and held that the plaintiff could seek relief based on the original debt. The suit was transferred to the Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Jammu for trial, as the High Court lacked jurisdiction to continue the trial. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with no order as to costs.
|
