ORDER
Ratnam, J.
1. The defendants in O.S. No.66 of 1987, Additional District Munsif’s Court, Tirunelveli, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition, which is directed against the order passed by the Court below allowing I.A. No. 1835 of 1989 filed by the respondent herein praying that the respondent, who had been earlier examined, should be recalled and further examined and to mark in evidence the instrument on the basis of which the suit had been instituted.
2. In O.S. No.66 of 1987, the respondent had prayed for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.5,420/- from the petitioners on a promissory note. That promissory note had been executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs.2.50. The petitioners raised an objection that the document on the basis of which the suit had been instituted by the respondent was not a promissory note, but that objection was over-ruled. However, the instrument as such had been omitted to be marked in evidence when the respondent was examined as P.W. 1 and in I.A. No. 1935 of 1989, the respondent prayed that he should be recalled and the document on ‘the basis of which the suit had been laid, should be marked in evidence. In opposition to this, the petitioners raised the plea that the promissory note sued upon was not duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, under Section 35 of the Act, the document could be received in evidence. The Court below held, relying upon P. Moorthy v. A.R. Kothandaraman (1978) 2 M.L J. 294, that the instrument in question had been properly stamped under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and that Section 35 of the Act was not a bar to the document being received in evidence. In that view, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed that the respondent should be recalled for further examination for marking the document in evidence. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.
3. Referring to Sections 2(11), 10,11 and 35 of the Act and Article 49(a)(iii) of Schedule I to the Act and Rules 3(2), 5, 13 and 16 of the Rules, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that promissory notes of the kind sued upon should be stamped only with adhesive stamps of proper denomination and that too with stamps of the description as prescribed in Rule 16 of the Rules and the instrument in question not having been so stamped, was inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Act. Referring to the decision in P. Moorthy v. A.R. Kothandaraman (1978) II MLJ 294 relied on by the Court below, learned Counsel pointed out that decision required reconsideration in as much as the effect of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act had not been considered therein.
4. In order to appreciate the contention so raised, it would be necessary to make a reference to come of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 2(11) of the Act defining “Duly stamped” states that as applied to an instrument, it means that the instrument bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with the law for the time being in force in India. Thus, in order to be instrument duly stamped for purpose of the Act the instrument should bear an adhesive or impressed stamp. Adhesive or impressed stamp has been defined under Section 2(13) of the Act as including labels affixed or impressed by the proper office and stamps embossed or engraved on stamped paper. Under Section 10(1) of the Act, the mode of payment of stamp duty has been indicated. That provision enacts that all duties with which instruments are chargeable shall be paid, and such payment shall be indicated on such instruments by means of stamps according to the provisions herein contained; or when no such provision is applicable thereto, as the State Government may be rule direct. This, however, is subject to express provision in the Act otherwise. Section 10(2) of the Act is not necessary for the present purposes. The promissory note sued upon in this case is in excess of Rs.1,000/- and that is not in dispute and the stamp duty payable under Article 49(1)(iii) of Schedule I to the Act is twenty-five paise. However, Section 11(a) of the Act, which makes a reference to instruments chargeable with a duty not exceeding twenty paise, except parts of bills of exchange payable otherwise than on demand and drawn in sets, has no application. Likewise, the Section 11(b) to (e) also will n&t have any application in this case. Under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, for pruposes of indicating payment of duty, with which instruments are chargeable, two kinds of stamps have been enumerated, viz., impressed stamp and adhesive stamp. Rule 5 provides that except as provided by Section 11 of the Act or by Rule 13 of the Rules, a promissory note or bill of exchange shall be written on paper on which a stamp of the proper value, with or without the word ‘hundi’, has been engraved or embossed. Under Rule 13(e) of the Rules, it has been provided that instruments chargeable with stamp duty under Article 49(a)(ii) and (iii) may be stamped with adhesive stamps. Rule 16 of the Rules provides that except as otherwise provided by these rules, the adhesive stamps used to denote duty shall be the requisite number of stamps bearing the words ‘India Revenue’ and the words “Twenty-five paise” or “Fifteen paise” or “Ten paise”, Rule 17 of the Rules catalogues the kind of instruments which require to be stamped with special adhesive stamps. It is thus seen from the above provisions of the Act and the Rules that the instrument in this case will not fall under Section 11 of the Act and there is, therefore, no question of its being stamped according to the provisions of the Act, as laid down in Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. In other words, the instrument in this case required to be stamped in accordance with the Rules. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, a promissory note, shall except as otherwise provided by Rule 13, be written on paper, on which a stamp on the proper value has been engraved or embossed. However, under Rule 13(e) of. the Rules, which is permissive, as shown by the use of the expression, ‘may’, such an instrument may be stamped with adhesive stamps. Thus, though under Rule 5 of the Rules a promissory note shall be written on paper, on which a stamp of the proper value has been engraved or embossed, by the operation of Rule 13(e) of the Rules, such as instrument can also be written on paper and duly stamped with adhesive stamps. When a promissory note is written on stamp paper instead of a plain paper with adhesive stamps, the payment of duty with which instrument is chargeable, is indicated under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Rules, which includes stamps engraved on stamped paper, under Section 2(13)(b) of the Act, Thus, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, a promissory note can be either written on stamp paper of the proper value or written on plain paper and stamped with adhesive stamps. In either event the payment of stamp duty would be in accordance with the Rules. The reliance placed by learned Counsel for the petitioners on Rule 16 of the Rules does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner for, that Rule contemplates that when adhesive stamps are used to denote payment of stamp duty, it shall be in the shape of requisite number of stamps bearing the words specified in that Rule. Even so, that Rule is subject to a provisions to the contrary in the Rules and that is found in Rule 17, which requires that special adhesive stamps should be used in certain cases and not ordinary revenue stamps as commonly understood and referred to in Rule 16 of the Rules. Thus, on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it has to be held that the promissory note in this case, though written on engraved stamp paper of the value of Rs.2.50, had been duly stamped and indeed overstamped or excessively stamped and its admissibility in evidence cannot be objected to under Section 35 of the Act.
5. A reference may now be made to some of the decisions directly in point. In P. Moorthy v. A.R. Kothandaraman (1978) II MLJ 294, the promissory note was written up on a stamp paper of the value of Rs.1.50 and it was contended that such a document cannot be considered to be duly slamped within the meaning of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. After referring to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and the decisions in Kalyan Singh v. Bhanwar Lal ILR (1965) Rajasthan 231 and Somdatta v. Abdul Rashid AIR 1968 Rajasthan 45, it was held that a promissory note can be stamped whether with adhesive stamps or engrossed on a slump paper of proper value and that such a document could be admitted in evidence and relief given. To similar effect is the decision in Puttsaswamappa v. Krishne URS ILR (1980) Kurnataka 820. In that case, in proceedings in insolvency prayed for an order of adjudication based on indebtedness on the foot of a promissory note for Rs. 1,000/- falling under Article 49(a)(ii) of Schedule I to the Act, the debtor raised an objection that the promissory note was not duly stamped and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence as it was written on impressed stamp paper of the value of fifty paise and that was upheld by the insolvency Court. On appeal to the High Court, referring to Sections 2(11) and 10 of the Act and Rules 5 and 13 of the Rules framed thereunder, it was pointed out that though under Rule 5 of the Rules normally it is imperative that all instruments shall be on impressed paper, an exception is made under Rule 13 of the Rules and this exception is mentioned in Rule 5 itself and in Rule 13 of the Rules, the word used is ‘may’ and that provided an option to the person either to use impressed stamp paper or to use adhesive stamps. In that view, it was held that the promissory note was written on proper stamp paper and was admissible in evidence and the insolvency Court was not, therefore, justified in not admitting it in evidence. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision would squarely govern this case as well. Therefore, the view taken by the Court below that the instrument in this case, though written on engraved stamp paper of the value of Rs.2.50 was duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder the was admissible in evidence and for making it in evidence, P.W. 1 should be recalled, is correct and does not merit any interference. The Civil Revision Petition, is, therefore, dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.