JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - The parties in both these appeals are for all practical purposes, the same and therefore they have been taken up together. 2. These appeals arise out of two different suits. Both the suits were for realisation of money on the basis of two promissory notes, both dated 3-7-1955. The claim of the Plaintiffs in both the suits was that these promissory notes were executed by Defendants 1 and 2 one for a sum of Rs. 1500/- (which is the subject-matter of the suit giving rise to second appeal No. 333 of 1963) and the other for sum of Rs. 1300/- (which is the subject matter of the suit giving rise to second appeal No. 334 of 1963). The two Courts below have decreed both the suits and hence these appeals by the common Defendants in the two suits. At the time of hearing, however, second appeal No. 333 of 1963 has not been pressed for consideration by Mr. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants-Appellants. In other words the submission made on behalf of the Appellants in this Court is confined to second appeal No. 334 of 1963. The main controversy raised in that case in the Courts below was whether the promissory note dated 3-7-1955 which was for a sum of Rs. 1300/- was a genuine document or that it had been got up by the Plaintiff for the purpose of establishing his claim made in the plaint. The Defendants, in support of their plea that it was not a genuine document, had raised the contention that the date of the stamp affixed on the promissory note was not of the time when it purported to have been affixed. The Plaintiff bad, therefore, got it sent through the Court to the Stamp Expert for report as to the date of the stamp affixed on the promissory note. The stamp Expert, on an examination of the document, sent, a report that the stamp affixed on the promissory note was issued on the date as alleged by the Plaintiff. But, unfortunately, that report was not got proved by the Stamp Expert. The trial Court, therefore, did not take the report into consideration and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove that the promissory note relied on by the Plaintiff was a genuine document. But, unfortunately, that report was not got proved by the Stamp Expert. The trial Court, therefore, did not take the report into consideration and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove that the promissory note relied on by the Plaintiff was a genuine document. In appeal, however, it seems that the document has been taken into evidence on the ground that it is a public document, and on the basis of that document the judgment of the trial Court has been reserved. 3. Now the grievance made in second appeal against the judgment of the Court below is that the report of the Stamp Expert should not have been treated as a public document and, as such, should not have been admitted into evidence without the same having been formally proved by the Stamp Expert. In my opinion this assumption made on behalf of the Appellants is well founded and also stands supported by authority. The information supplied by the Stamp Expert is, after all, in relation to a fact which was sent by him in answer to a query made on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore that fact cannot be said to have been made out in any public document and as such the same could not be taken into evidence unless it was brought on record in accordance with law. The information of the Stamp Expert, as made out in the report, was that the stamp affixed on the promissory note had been issued at the time as alleged by the Plaintiff. That was a fact in dispute and therefore it was open to be challenged by the Defendants. As such the report could not be treated as a public document. This is fully borne out by authority Ram Autar Shukul Vs. Baldeo Shukul. That being so, the case involved in second appeal No. 334 of 1963 has to be sent down to the Court below for re-hearing after giving necessary opportunity to the Plaintiff, if be so likes, to get the report of the Stamp Expert formally proved in accordance writ law, and to Defendants to rebut that evidence if they so choose. 4. For these reasons, therefore, second appeal No. 333 of 1963 is dismissed. 4. For these reasons, therefore, second appeal No. 333 of 1963 is dismissed. But second appeal No. 334 of 1963 is allowed and the case is sent back to the Court below for fresh hearing in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs in either of the two appeals. S.A. 333 of 1963 dismissed and S.A. 334 of 1964 remanded. Final Result : Dismissed