SAO No. 73 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SAO No. 73 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.10.2011 *** Bhim Singh .. Appellant VS. Smt. Urmila Rani .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay condoned. The plaintiff has preferred the instant appeal against the order dated 17.5.2011 passed by the appellate Court below by dint of which judgment and decree dated 18.8.2009 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8 lacs with interest @ 8%, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 33 read with Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for impounding, payment of stamp duty and penalty on the document Ex.P1, whereupon the defendant acknowledged the taking of loan of Rs.8 lacs, thereby treating the same to be an agreement. However, that prayer was rejected by the learned trial Court and while considering the nature of the said document held the same not to be an agreement, but a pronote. Dis-satisfied with the same the plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No.265 of 2006, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2007 and it was held that at the time of deciding the application the nature of document, its admissibility and evidentiary value thereof was not required to be gone into, as has been done wrongly by the learned trial Court and it ought to have been done at the time of final decision of the suit. SAO No. 73 of 2011 2 Accordingly, the plaintiff was permitted to pay stamp duty and penalty on the document. But it was made clear that nature of document, its legal effect and the rights accruing thereon to the parties shall be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of final decision of the suit. Later, as noticed above, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. It emerges out from the perusal of the impugned judgment that during the hearing the learned appellate Court below found that there had been non compliance of order dated 17.11.2007 passed by this Court, by the learned trial Court because the nature of document Ex.P1, which was the basis of whole case of the plaintiff and its legal effect was not considered by the learned trial Court while deciding the suit. No findings were returned by the learned trial Court with regard to the said document, in absence of which the suit ought not to have been decided. Consequently, the learned appellate Court below rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and remanded the case for decision afresh, within three months, while adhering to the directions contained in order dated 17.11.2007, passed by this Court. There is no illegality or perversity in the approach adopted by the learned appellate Court below. Finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 31,2011 Jiten