( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dt. 13-7-1973 passed by the the Prl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Dist. , Bangalore in OS 96 of 1971 in regard to the question whether the suit promissory note was or was not properly stamped and hence was or was not admissible in evidence. ( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that the suit is for recovery of Rs. 12,264 on the basis of an on demand promissory note. The promissory note has been written on an impresses stamp of the value of Re. 1. The defendant raised an objection that the promissory note aught to have been written on a plain paper and a dhseive stamp of the proper value had to be affixed and the signautre of the defendant ought to have been taken on it and hence the promissory note in question is not stamped as per the provisions of law, therefore, it was inadmissble in evidence. The learned Civil Judge over-ruled this objection and held on reading S. ll of the Ind. Stamp Act and drawing support from the decision in Somdatta v. Abdul Rashi, AIR 1968 Raj. 45 , that the promissory note in question was properly stamped and hence admissible in evidence. ( 3 ) BOTH the learned Counsel agree that the provisions of the Ind. Stamp Act, 1899 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Ind. Stamp Rules, 1925 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Rules) govern payment of stamp duty on promissory notes. This position is found to be correct on reading the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and the Karnataka Stamp rules, 1958, and Entry 91 in List I of Sch. 7 to the Constitution of India. S. 11 of the Act deals with use of adhesive stamps. It says that bills of excange or promissory notes drawn out of India may be stamped with adhesive stamps. The promissory note on hand is not a promissory note made out of India. This provision, therefore, will not apply Art. 49 of schedule 1 to the Act, reads as allows : "49. It says that bills of excange or promissory notes drawn out of India may be stamped with adhesive stamps. The promissory note on hand is not a promissory note made out of India. This provision, therefore, will not apply Art. 49 of schedule 1 to the Act, reads as allows : "49. Promissory note as defined by S. 2 (22) - * * * * *" rule 5 of the Rules reads as follows : "promissory notes and bills of exchange,- * * * * * " a reading of Rule, 5 of the Rules makes it manifest that promissory notes except those providedin S. 11 or Rules 13 and 17, should be written on paper on which a stamp of the proper value, with or without the word 'hundi' has been engraved or embossed. It does not prohibit promissory notes that fall within the ambit of S. ll of the Act and Rules 13 and 17 of the rules from being written on impressed stamps: rule 13 (f) of the Rules reads as follows : "13. Use of adhesive stamps on certain instruments.- the following instruments may be stamped with adhesive stamps, namely: - (f) Instruments chargeable with stamp duty under Arts. 37, 49 (a) (ii) and (iii) and 52 of Schedule I. " ( 4 ) THE promissory note on hand falls within Art. 49 (a) (iii) of Sch. I to the act. Therefore, Rule13 (f) of the Rules would be applicable. Hence, it is obvious that this falls within the excepted category of promissory notes mentioned in Rule 5. Under Rule 13 (f) of the Rules the stamp duty on the suit promissory note could have been paid by using adhesive stamps also. The effect of the aforementioned provisions is that the promissory notes falling within S. 11 of the Act or Rules 13 or 17 of the Rules, may be written on paper of papers on which stamps of appropriate value are impressed or on paper or papers on which adhesive stamps of appropriate value are affixed. Therefore, the suit promissory note could also have been executed by using adhesive stamps. The provisions cannot be understood to mean that this promissory note would be a valid promissory note in law, only if adhesive stamps had been used. Therefore, the suit promissory note could also have been executed by using adhesive stamps. The provisions cannot be understood to mean that this promissory note would be a valid promissory note in law, only if adhesive stamps had been used. ( 5 ) THE reasoning in Samdattas case (1), is based mainly on the use of the word 'may' in S. 11 of the Act and Rules 6 and 14 of the Rajasthan Stamp rules. It may be pointed out that Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules is in pari materia with Rule 5 of the Rules and Rule 14 (i) of the Rajasthan stamp Rule is in pari materia with Rule 13 (f) of the Rules. This reasoning very well supports the above view. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition and hence it is dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .