JUDGMENT
M.L. Jain, J.
(1) The respondents filed a suit against the petitioner under 0.37 G.P.C., for recovery of the amount dut to on two pronotes, one for Rs. 17,000.00 of November 15, 1974, and the other of Rs. 8,500.00 of of June 23, 1975. The defendant admitted the receipt of the amount paid through cheques and his signatures on the alleged pronotes but his defense was :- (1) that the amount was paid as remuneration for his consultancy and other services regarding design and production; (2) that he had signed some blank papers for accounting and income- tax purposes, on which the pronotes had been forged; and (3) that the adhesive stamps on the pronotes had not been duly cancelled and therefore the pronotes should be deemed to be unstamped and the suit should fail.
(2) A preliminary issue was framed on the third plea on November 28, 1978. No evidence was led by either side. Arguments were heard on January 10, 1979. The learned Addl. District Judge held that “the pronotes were duly cancelled.”
(3) Against that order this revision petition has been filed on two grounds:- (i) .the stamps were not cancelled as required by s. 12 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, arid the suit deserved to be dismissed. Reliance is placed upon B.B. Suraj Bkan v. Dr. Dewan Singh 2nd (1974) Ii Del. 581; and (ii) the order is not a speaking order. Reliance is placed on Smt. Swarau Lata Ghosh v. Barendra Kumar Banerjee and an other, .
(4) I have examined the matter. Since the documents have not yet been admitted in evidence, S. 36 of the Indian Stamp Act shall be no bar to an objection as to their inadmissibility on the ground of their being duly stamped or not. Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act provides that if an adhesive stamp on a document is not cancelled in such an effectual manner, that it cannot be used over again, the document shall be deemed to be unstamped. One such effectual manner is that the person required to cancel an adhesive stamp may do so “by writing on or across the stamp his name or initials or the name or initials of his firm with the true date of his so writing,…………”, vide sub-section (3) of S. 12. In B. B. Suraj Bhan (supra), the pronote had four revenue stamps of 10 Naya Paise each. Three of them had on them the signatures of the executant but the fourth stamp had a faint line in ink running almost half way across the stamp with a hook coming downward in somewhat deeper impression in ink. All the four were held not properly cancelled because they could be lifted and affixed on another document giving complete signatures. It was observed that in order that the stamps can be effectually cancelled the signatures should commence on the paper on which the stamp is affixed, go across the stamps and finish on the paper on the other side. If signatures are not affixed to cancel the stamp, some other effectual manner of cancellation be adopted running right across the stamps, the cancellation commencing on the paper on which the stamp is affixed and ending also on the paper on the other side.
(5) Upon an examination of the documents, I find that the stamp of 10 Paise on the pronote of Rs. 8,500.00 has been cancelled just in the manner desired in the aforesaid judgment. The signatures begin on the paper, cross over the stamp and end with a date on the same paper. Out of the four stamps, on the other pronote the lower two have been cancelled in the manner provided in Sub-section (3) of S. 12, to which I have already referred. The two stamps above them are not cancelled in the manner provided in R. B. Suraj Bhan (supra). But, I do not think that the manner of cancellation suggested in the case, purports to exhaust the modes of cancellation. The test provided by law simply is whether the stamp can be used again if lifted from the document. I find that out of the upper two stamps one is cancelled by initials, the last line of which crosses the second one in a way what I think the stamp can not be lifted and used again. The first objection therefore fails.
(6) As regards the second objection, every judicial order must give reasons and the impugned order does not detail any. But I do not think that after what I have held above, it is any more necessary to quash the older for that reason.
(7) I, therefore, reject this revision petition, but shall make no order as to costs.