Bimala Prasad Das, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in Money Suit No. 107 of 1991 thereby holding that the promissory note is insufficiently stamped and directing the plaintiff to impound the document by making payment of deficit stamp duty along with penalty by the next date.
2. The ground on which the challenge has been made to the aforesaid order is that the non-mention of the words 'to the order or bearer on demand' is irrelevant and thus this promissory note will come under category No. (iii) of Article 49 of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act') and is thus properly stamped with 40 paise revenue stamp. It is also further alleged that the applicability of Clause (b) of Article 49 of the Act is erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the order dated 31.7.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur wherein it was held that the document in question conforms the characteristic of a promissory note thereby rejecting the claim of the defendant that the document does not conform to the characteristic of a promissory note either in form or in substance.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after rejection of the application dated 3.7.95 there was no occasion on the part of the trial Court to rehear the application and pass the impugned order. In this context I may at the outset say that even if an application was not filed, it is also the duty of the Court to examine whether the document sought to be admitted into evidence was validly stamped or not. That apart my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the opposite party to the fact that another application was filed by the learned counsel for the defendant to hold that the document in question was insufficiently stamped. However, this Court is only to examine whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is correct to hold that the document in question is to be stamped as provided in Clause (b) of Article 49 of the Act in order to let the said document admitted into evidence, as question regarding whether the document is a promissory note or not has already been decided by the order dated 31.7.95 of the learned trial Judge. For sake of convenience it is profitable to quote the provision of Article 49 of the Schedule appended to the Act which reads:
'Description of instrument Proper stamp duty
49. Promissory note
[as defined by Section 2(22)]
(a) when payable on demand -
(i) when the amount or value
does not exceed Rs. 250; Ten naye paise.
(ii) when the amount or
value exceeds Rs. 250 but
does not exceed Rs. 1,000; Fifteen naye paise
(iii) in any other case Twenty-five naye paise
(b) when payable otherwise The same duty as a
than on demand Bill of Exchange (No.
13) for the same amount
payable otherwise than
on demand.'
4. This is a case where it appears from the order passed by the learned trial Judge that the defendant has promised to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to Mr. J. K. Nayak, the plaintiff, within 25th February, 1989 and rest amount of Rs. 85,000/- by 30.4.89 in three instalments. The document contains the promise to pay certain cash to a definite person at a fixed or determinable time.
5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to the decision in AIR (32) 1945 Madras 42 (Alamelu Ammal v. P. Rangai Gounder) where their Lordships held :
'xx xx xx If the debt could be demanded at any time within two years, then the words 'within two years' would have no meaning at all. It seems clear to me that these words were introduced to give the debtor time within which to pay the debt and that within that time the promisee could not enforce the debt. It follows that the promissory note is not one payable on demand.'
The aforesaid decision was followed in the case of Thenappa Chettiar v. Andiyapaa Chettiar reported in AIR 1971 Madras 290 as well as in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Halwai reported in AIR 1981 Allahabad 58.
6. In a decision reported in AIR 1995 TRA-00. 65 (Aiyappankutty v. Mathoo Mathai and others) the Court while relying on the decision in AIR (32) Madras 42 (supra) held as follows:
'xx xx xx The words 'payable on demand' occurring in a promissory note mean payable 'at once.' forthwith' or 'immediately' and a promissory note payable on a specified date or after a specified period or within a certain time can hence be considered only as a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand. A promissory note payable on demand is payable without any demand and the true import of the words 'on demand' is that the debt is due and payable immediately.'
7. Looking into the recitals made in the promissory note, it transpires from the order-sheet dated 31.7.95 of the learned trial Judge as well as from the impugned order that this is a case where money shall be payable within 25.2.89 and rest amount of Rs. 85,000/- within 30.4.89 in three instalments. The said document cannot be construed to be a promissory note payable on demand and it certainly falls within the category 'when payable otherwise on demand'. Therefore, unless it is stamped as required under Article 49 (b) of the Schedule-I appended to the Act, it is inadmissible in evidence. Accordingly I do not find any irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge to interfere with the same. But at the same time. I direct the learned trial Judge to conclude the Money Suit No. 107 of 1991 within a period of six months after the impounding proceeding is over.