C.R. No. 2434 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2434 of 2008 Date of Decision : 8.9.2009 Surjit Singh .......... Petitioner Versus M/s B.R. Trading Company, Bhawanigarh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated 16.1.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Sangrur vide which application moved by the petitioner for affixing the stamp duty with penalty on document Annexure P-1, stands dismissed. The learned trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the application by recording the following finding :- “6. I have also gone through the case titled as BB Lohar Vs. Prem Prakash Goyal, reported in AIR 1999 SIKKIM, 11, wherein, it is held that mere acknowledgment of C.R. No. 2434 of 2008 2 receipt of money would not constitute a document as promissory note. Similarly, in the case in hand, through receipt dated 2.4.2002, defendant Ishwar Dass had only acknowledged the payment of Rs. Three lack, but he never undertake to repay the same alongwith interest. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, this writing could be said to be promissory note under Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Since, it is not a promissory note, so, as such, plaintiff / applicant, on this simple receipt, cannot be allowed to affix required stamp fee. Therefore, the application being without merit, is ordered to be dismissed.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the impugned order suffers from a patent illegality, as the petitioner nowhere claimed that the document Annexure P-1 was a negotiable instrument. The plea raised was that, the document being receipt was required to be stamped as per Article 53 of the Stamp Act, which reads as under :- “ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Description of instrument Proper stamp duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Art. 53. Receipt as defined by section One Rupee 2(23) for any money or other property the amount or value of which exceeds C.R. No. 2434 of 2008 3 five thousands rupees” The definition of receipt given under Section 2(23) leaves no manner of doubt that the document Annexure P-1 comes within the definition of “receipt”, therefore, was required to be stamped, as per the provisions of the Stamp Act. It was duty of the Court to impound the document, which was under stamped and impose penalty as per the Stamp Act, on its production. The application moved was in consonance with the provisions of the Stamp Act and, therefore, deserved to be allowed. This revision is accordingly allowed, the application moved by the petitioner for making good the stamp duty on Annexure P-1 along with penalty is allowed. However, this order shall not be taken to be admission of document so as to be read in evidence, as it would be for the petitioner to prove it in accordance with law. This Court has only dealt with the question as to whether the petitioner could be allowed to make good the stamp duty along with penalty in terms of provisions of Stamp Act. 8.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE