Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 591 2005 SLD 591 2005 CLD 1864
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.269 of 2002, decision dated: 5-09-2005, hearing DATE : 7-07-2005
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE
Atif Amin for Appellant. Ali Akbar Qureshi for
Respondent. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. Amicus Curiae

CHAUDHRY KHALID MAHMOOD

VS

CHAUDHRY SAID MUHAMMAD

Law: Stamp Act, of 1899

Section: 35

Stamp Act (II of 1899)--Ss. 35, proviso (a) & 36---Promissory note not duly stamped---Raising such objection. in written statement and framing of an issue thereon---Admission of such promissory note in evidence without objection by defendant---Validity---Such promissory note though not invalid would be inadmissible in evidence as defect of deficiency of stamps thereon not curable---Suit based on such promissory note, thus, would be liable to be dismissed---Provisions of S.36, Stamp Act, 1899 were mandatory and had an effect to override S.35 imposing complete bar to question admissibility of a document including such promissory note once admitted in evidence rightly or wrongly, thus, no Court could reject and exclude same from its consideration, rather same would be read as a valid piece of evidence and such issue would become redundant---Principles. An insufficiently stamped pro note shall be inadmissible in evidence, it cannot be made admissible by impounding and paying the penalty, and the suit based upon such a pro note shall be dismissed. According to the law, a deficiently stamped document including a pro note is not invalid, but the only vice and the disability attached to such a document under section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, is about its inadmissibility in evidence or that it cannot be acted upon, unless duly stamped. Proviso (a) to the section 35, however, provides the mechanism, as to how and subject to what conditions, the defect can be cured, but with the exception of certain documents including a pro note. This means that the defect of deficiency of stamps on a pro note is incurable and it remains to be inadmissible in evidence. This is the ultimate purport of section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 when construed along with the first proviso. The above section 35 is followed by section 36, which provides that "where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided by section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped." This is a very comprehensive and a powerful provision with the command that if an instrument deficiently…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492