SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

JAVER CHAND V. PUKHRAJ SURANA (1962) 2 SCR 333 : AIR 1961 SC 1655

 JAVER CHAND V. PUKHRAJ SURANA (1962) 2 SCR 333 : AIR 1961 SC 1655

FACTS

  • The plaintiffs, commission agents, claimed that the defendant owed them money during their business dealings in Bombay.
  • In settlement of this debt, the defendant drew two mudatti hundis (financial instruments) in favor of the plaintiffs, one for Rs. 20,000 payable after 61 days and the other for Rs. 15,000 payable after 121 days.
  • The plaintiffs endorsed these hundis to G. Raghunathmal Bank for credit to their account. However, the defendant dishonored the hundis when presented for payment by the bank.
  • Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 39,615, principal with interest, based on these hundis.
  • The trial court held that the hundis were admissible in evidence, as they were exhibited and numbered under the court's authority, and the defendant's counsel referred to and read them during the trial.
  • On appeal, the High Court held that the admission of the hundis was a mistake, as they were not properly stamped as per the applicable stamp law.
  • Present appeal is against HC judgment.

ISSUE

  • The main issue was whether the two hundis were admissible in evidence, the defendant contended that the hundis were inadmissible due to lack of stamping as per stamp law.

RULE

  • Section 36 states that once a document has been admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned later due to stamping issues, except in cases specified by Section 61.

HELD

  • The Court noted that the trial court properly admitted the hundis in evidence, and they were marked as exhibits with the endorsement "admitted in evidence" under the court's authority.
  • The Court highlighted that both parties had utilized the hundis during the trial, referencing them in examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
  • It reiterated that once a document is admitted in evidence, neither the trial court nor any higher court can revisit its admissibility, barring exceptional circumstances specified by law.
  • The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's refusal to consider the hundis, noting that it contradicted the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act.
  • Ultimately, the Court concluded that the hundis, having been properly proved and utilized throughout the trial, should have been acted upon, and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs.