IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-SIXTH OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP.No.1777 of 2014 Between :
Chennamalla Buran Chennaiah, S/o.Buran Balaiah, Aged : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o.H.No.9-61, Harijanwada Street, Gopalpet Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.
… Revision Petitioner/Defendant Vs.
K. Samuel, S/o.Chinnaiah, Aged : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o.Gopalpet Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.
…Respondent/Plaintiff Counsel for the Revision/ Petitioner : Sri V. Hanmanth Rao Counsel for Respondent : -
The Court made the following : [order follows] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP.No.1777 of 2014 JUDGMENT :
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.17.02.2014 in OS.No.183 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Nagarkurnool. The Revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount against the revision petitioner herein on the basis of a promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- payable with interest at the rate of Rs.2.00 per hundred per month.
3. During the course of the evidence of the respondent, the respondent sought to mark the said promissory note.
4. This was objected to by petitioner on the ground that the thumb mark on the revenue stamps on the promissory note did not extend to the document. By order dt.17.02.2014, the trial court rejected the said objection on the ground that apart from the thumb impression on the revenue stamps, there is another clear thumb mark of the executant underneath the revenue stamps.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revision is filed.
6. The counsel for petitioner contends that the revenue stamps on the promissory note have been lifted from another document and affixed on the suit promissory note, and therefore, the trial court ought to have sustained the objection and prohibited the suit promissory note from being marked in evidence.
7. The contention now raised by the counsel for petitioner was not raised in those terms in the trial court. Admittedly, there are two revenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note with a gap in between. The thumb impression on these two revenue stamps also covers the gap between them. It cannot be disputed that the gap between the two revenue stamps is also part of the same promissory note. Therefore, it cannot be said that the thumb mark on the promissory note is not extended to the document. I also reject the contention of petitioner that both the revenue stamps were lifted from another document and affixed on the suit promissory note, because if that were to be so, then the area in between both the revenue stamps would not be covered by the thumb impression.
8. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revision and the same is accordingly dismissed.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any in this Revision, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 26-06-2014 Ndr/*