AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As it is clear that the Judge in fact admitted in evidence Exhibit C, the objection made u/s 35 of the Stamp Act is of no avail. Section 36 is clear
as to this. It is argued that the Judge intended to reject the document as is shown by paragraph 15 of his judgment; but even if such were his
intention when we find that he has admitted it and made the endorsement required by Section 140 of the CPC and written no endorsement of
rejection as required by Section 142 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is impossible to admit this argument. There is no bar by limitation. ''We are
satisfied upon the evidence that the printed portion of Exhibit E7 was signed by all the defendants, and that document shows that before the debt
became barred an extension of time was granted up to the 23rd December 1895 inclusive. The Court was closed on the 23rdDecember 1898,
and the plaint was presented on the 26th December, the 1st subsequent day on which the Court was open. It was, therefore, in time. The Judge is
clearly mistaken in holding that this was a negotiable promissory note and in holding that ail assignment by separate deed was invalid.
We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and give the plaintiff a joint decree against the three defendants for Rs. 2,517-2-4 up to date
of plaint, plus six per cent, on the principal from date of plaint till this date and upon the aggregate amount including costs in the lower Court and
this Court from this date to date of payment.