AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present respondent as the plaintiff filed the Money Suit thereby claiming a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs from the defendant appellant . The suit was
decreed and thereafter Money Appeal No. 1 of 2015 was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.5.2013 passed by learned Civil
Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Money Suit No. 3/2010. Admittedly both the courts below came to the conclusion that the defendant appellant
accepted the amount of Rs.2.5 lacs from the plaintiff respondent. It is the contention of Mr.Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
there is a condition at the time of accepting the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs that the amount would be required for sanctioning of the work order against
the contract. However courts below did not enquire into the said aspects of the matter whether the work order against the said contract was
allotted to any other person because of the fact that if the said work order had not been issued to anyone under such circumstances the suit is
prematured one. From the discussion of the both the courts below it is seen that there was no endeavour on the part of the defendant appellant to
prove the said condition that the said contract had not been allotted to anyone. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the agreement
though nomenclatured by the plaintiff respondent as a bond but it does not fulfil the requirement under the Indian Stamp Act. Under such
circumstances the courts below ought not to have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff respondent. Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act
a document if not properly stamped the same is not admissible in evidence. However the said provision also says that in the event of such findings
by any court of law where the officer is authorised to take evidence, a chance is to be given to the parties who introduced the said bond. In fact
while exhibiting the said agreement/bond there was no objection by the defendant respondent. Once a document is marked as exhibit
inadmissibility of the same cannot be raised subsequently in any other higher forum so far mode of proof is concerned. However if the said
document is inherently inadmissible that issue can be raised even in the higher forum even if it is marked as exhibit. The courts below more
specifically trial court failed to take note of said provision nor, the defendant appellant has raised any such objection. Under such circumstance this
court cannot interfere on the conclusive nature of facts arrived at by the both the courts below. Accordingly the submission of the learned counsel
cannot be accepted and this Court finds no substantial questions of law to be involved in this second appeal resulting dismissal of the same.