Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
M/S. GURUNANAK MEDICAL & SURGICAL AGENCY V/S SITARAM SHIVHARE, decided on Friday, April 7, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor, Civil Revision No. 49 of 2009. ] 07/04/2017
Judge(s) : VIVEK AGARWAL
Advocate(s) : R.K. Soni, Learned Counsel. Harish Dixit, Learned Counsel.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (2) MPWN 96"  ==   ""  







    1. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2008 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.47-A/2007 E.D. whereby the first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II Gwalior in Civil Suit No.108/2006.2. Brief facts leading to the present civil revision are that this civil revision was initially filed as second appeal and was thereafter converted into a civil revision by making an application for such conversion on the ground that as per the provisions contained in Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure there is a provision which prohibits filing of second appeal in matters having valuation upto Rs. 25 000/- and therefore permission was sought to convert the second appeal into civil revision and therefore this appeal has been entertained as civil revision.3. Though in the second appeal as was filed by the petitioner the petitioner had raised several substantial questions of law namely :-(i)In view of two kinds of stamps described in sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 of the M.P. Stamp Rules 1942 whether special adhesive stamps may be treated as something in addition to adhesive stamps and not opposed or in contradistinction to adhesive stamp as required for promissory note?(ii) Whether the word may in Rule 17 of M.P. Stamp Rules 1942 is of permissive nature and not of mandatory nature?(iii) Whether the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma 2000 (I) MPJR 51 that only adhesive stamps bearing inscription of revenue should be used on promissory note is not a good law in view of earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganpat Singh & Another v. Gurucharan Singh & Another : AIR 1973 MP 3? but vide order dated 29.10.2010 the Single Bench of this Court was pleased to refer the above substantial questions of law to be decided by the Full Bench of the Court in view of the contradictions in the judgments rendered in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma : 2000 (I) MPJR 51 in which it was held that only that adhesive stamp which bears inscription of revenue should be used on promissory note is a good law or not in view of the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganpat Singh & Another v. Gurucharan Singh & Another : AIR 1973 MP 3. This reference was answered by the Full Bench of this Court vide its order dated 28.02.2011 in which the Full Bench of this Court has been pleased to answer the reference as under:-(i) That keeping in view the two kinds of stamps mentioned in sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules 1942 the 'special adhesive stamp' be treated as in addition to 'adhesive stamp' not opposed or in contradistinction to 'adhesive stamp' as required for promissory note.(ii) That word 'may' used in Rule 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules 1942 is an enabling word and implies a discretion.(iii) That the decisions of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma 2000 (i) MPJR 51 and Division Bench in the case of Khamir Singh v. Radheshyam Bansal 2010 (5) M.P.H.T.249 (DB) are not good law in view of earlier Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of Ganpatsingh and another v. Gurucharansingh and another AIR 1973 MP 3 and also on the basis of our findings recorded above in the judgment.4. Now adverting to the facts of the case in the suit as was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 10 000/- on the strength of a promissory note the trial Court was pleased to hold that the transaction of lending money on 29.11.2000 is since not proved therefore the suit was dismissed. First appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the trial Court has erred in recording a finding that the plaintiff in his cross-examination in para 14 has denied the signatures of the defendant whereas on minute analysis of para 14 of plaintiff's cross-examination it is evident that the plaintiff had made the statements in relation to the signatures of one Preeti Bulani. It has also appreciated the fact that the plaintiff had denied the suggestion of the defendant that since the recovery was becoming time barred in the year 1994 therefore he had obtained signatures of the defendant with the help of the broker/Dalal on Ex.P/1. Thus the first appellate Court arrived at a finding that since the plaintiff again and again reiterated the fact that on Ex.P/1 the defendant had put his signatures in front of him therefore the trial Court erred in holding that signatures on Ex.P/1 were not made in the year 2000 and therefore no transaction had taken place in the year 2000. On the basis of such minute analysis of the evidence the learned first appellate Court decreed the suit.5. The scope of civil revision is limited inasmuch as the grounds which are available to exercise jurisdiction under civil revision are that the subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The State Amendment of the State of Madhya Pradesh provides that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order unless the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.6. In the present case since the Full Bench has decided the issue that the stamp as was affixed on Ex.P/1 is a valid stamp being a special adhesive stamp and keeping in view the fact that two kinds of stamps mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the M.P. Stamps Rules 1942 the 'special adhesive stamp' is to be treated as in addition to 'adhesive stamp' not opposed or in contradistinction to 'adhesive stamp' as required for promissory note. It is proved that Ex.P/1 is a promissory note which was executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the plaintiff and therefore he is liable to repay the amount as has been held by the first appellate Court. In view of such findings of the Full Bench on the basis of which it can be safely concluded that Ex.P/1 is a validly executed promissory note there is no error apparent on the face of record or in violation of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling for interference in the impugned order. Thus the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.