Rubt Mhc Advt: It’s a Second Appeal case has been admitted on the following substantial question of law. The following were raised by me for the Appellant. “a. When specific stand had been taken in the
“a. When specific stand had been taken in the written statement regarding insufficiency stamped promissory note should the trial court frame that as an issue or not? And in its absence should not the lower appellate court frame that as an issue?
b. Whether an insufficiently stamped promissory note can be admitted in evidence in violation of the scheme and scope of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act?
c. Whether the explanation given by the Appellant in cross examination would amount to rebuttal or not as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
The Second Appeal came for final disposal before Justice Mahadevan. It was raised that a perusal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court would reveal that no issue has been framed with regard to the insufficiently stamped pronote and if so, whether can it be admitted in evidence and the explanation given by the defendant in his cross examination would amount to rebuttal or not as contemplated under Section118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is settled law that based on the pleadings of the parties the issues to be framed and such issues to be decided based on the legal evidence.
It was raised that it’s also the duty of the First Appellate Court to discuss the material evidence on record so as to decide the controversy finally between the parties on the issues of law and facts. Rule 31 O.41 of the CPC is enacted and it casts upon a duty that in the judgment the Appellate Court must state the following facts: (i) the points for determination, (ii) the decision thereon; (iii) the reasons for the decision; and (iv)where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. This provision is mandatory and imperative. The object behind the provision is twofold. Firstly, to afford the parties an opportunity of knowing and understanding the grounds of the decisions with a view to enable them to exercise the right of Second Appeal, and secondly, to enable the High Court in Second Appeal to judge whether the Lower Appellate Court has properly appreciated the case and has decided it after applying its mind to it and that whether material on record is considered in judicial manner.
The Judge held that this Court being the Second Appellate Court empowered only to decide substantial questions of law cannot be expected to decide the question of fact and law and act like the First Appellate Court and therefore quashed and set aside the order of the First Appellate Court at Coimbatore and remanded back with a direction to decide (a). Whether the suit’s pro note is insufficiently stamped or not and if so can it be admitted in evidence as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.
(b) Whether the suit’s pro note was the pro note given to K.K.K.Finance by the Defendant (c) Whether the explanation given by the Defendant in cross his examination would amount to rebuttal or not as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
[5/20, 14:30] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
![Former govt advocate Thankira ;Extracts of notification no 106 by Madras High Court on New filing guidelines [5/20, 11:43] Thankira Advt: Dear Members: NOTIFICATION No. 106 / 2021](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
