Judgment · High Court

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6. None for other respondents. Heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by trial Judge whereby the objection regarding the admissibility of the document in evidence raised by the defendant was sustained and it was held that the instrument in question was a promissory note. Petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.37,100/- against the respondents. Respondent No.1 is a registered firm and respondents No.2 to 6 are partners thereof. It is dealing in finances. According to petitioner, her parents had deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- with the respondent/firm and it was assured that the respondents would pay Rs.350/- per month as interest thereon till the date of maturity. From June, 2007, -2- respondents did not pay the interest, therefore, a suit was filed as is stated herein above.

Respondents are contesting the claim in the suit and trial is going on. At the time of recording of the evidence of PW/1, plaintiff wanted to have adduced the deposit certificates dated 8.5.1998 in evidence. It was objected to by respondents on the ground that it was a promissory note and as it did not bear the requisite stamp duty, therefore, it was inadmissible in evidence. Learned trial Judge after hearing submissions sustained the objections and held that the instrument in question was a promissory note, hence this petition. Shri Jain submitted that trial Court committed an illegality in holding the instrument as a promissory note. He invited attention to section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and submitted that the instrument does not contain any unconditional undertaking for the payment of money; what it required is only 15 days prior notice and that would not make it a promissory note.

It is simply a certificate showing that a sum of Rs.35,000/- was deposited with respondent No.1. This aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the trial Court while deciding the objections of the respondents. -3- In view of the aforesaid, we find it difficult to sustain the order of the trial Court in this regard and it is hereby set aside. We make it clear that if the plaintiff wants to adduce the document in evidence, the trial Court while recording the evidence may deal with it in accordance with law without getting influenced by this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. hk/ (S.K.SETH) JUDGE