HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5388 of 2010 Date: March 15, 2011 Between: C. Nagamani @ Maniamma … Petitioner/ Defendant And M. Yasodamma … Respondent/ Plaintiff * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5388 of 2010 ORDER: The defendant in the suit, O.S. No.183 of 2010, on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, which was filed for recovery of amounts on the basis of three promissory notes, raised an objection when the plaintiff in the said suit sought to mark the said promissory notes in evidence. This objection was on the ground that the stamps affixed on the promissory notes were not duly cancelled and therefore, they could not be received in evidence. By order dated 06.9.2010, the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, overruled the said objection and directed that the said promissory notes be received in evidence subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty. Hence, this revision petition by the defendant in the suit. 2. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and Sri V. Bhaskara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 3. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that once the adhesive stamps affixed on the three promissory notes were not cancelled in accordance with Section 12 (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1899’), it would mean that the same were not stamped for the purposes of the Act as per Section 12 (2) thereof and therefore could not be received in evidence. He contended that Section 35 of the Act of 1899 had no application to the facts of the present case as understood by the trial court. It is his case that Section 35 would have application only to insufficiently stamped instruments and not to unstamped instruments. 4. However, perusal of the provision indicates otherwise. 5. Section 35 of the Act of 1899, prior to its amendment with effect from 18.4.2006 by the Finance Act, 2006, excluded from its ambit promissory notes. However, after the amendment there is no such exclusion and promissory notes would also be covered by proviso (a) to Section 35. As per proviso (a) any instrument chargeable with stamp duty or which is insufficiently stamped shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the stamp duty along with penalty as stipulated therein. There is no exclusion of unstamped instruments from the ambit of the said proviso as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Judgments in A. Narayana Reddy v. Dr. J. Sarojini Devi and another[1] and Mrs. K. Sudersanam v. S. Venkatarao[2] relied upon by the defendant before the trial court, being prior to the amendment, did not turn upon Section 35 of the Act of 1899. The order passed by the trial court receiving the promissory notes in evidence, subject to the plaintiff paying stamp duty and penalty, therefore warrants no interference. 5. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: March 15, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in one week. //B.O.// BSB [1] AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 378 [2] AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 442