N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Revision Application by the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 of the Regular Civil Suit No 6/1977 which has been filed by the opponents-plaintiffs in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Rajkot on the basis of a promissory note Mark 30/1 on the record of the learned trial Judge. When the plaintiffs witness No. 1 was being examined at Exh. 31 and he tried to prove the promissory note in question the present applicants advocate objected to the document being received evidence on the ground that it was not duly stamped and could not be received in evidence by virtue of the mandate of sec. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 which admittedly is still applicable to the Saurashtra region of the erstwhile Saurashtra State. The objection was based on the ground that the promissory note in question was not written on paper on which a stamp of the proper value with or without the word hundi has been engraved or embossed. It was therefore contended that Rule 5 of the Saurashtra Stamp Rules 1949 could not be said to have been complied with and therefore the said promissory note for all practical purposes was unstamped and therefore not worthy to be admitted in evidence. ( 2 ) RULE 5 of the Saurashtra Stamp Rules which even Mr. J. R. Nana- vaty for the original plaintiffs conceded to be operative reads as follows:-"5 Promissory notes and bills of exchange-A promissory note or bill of exchange shall except as provided by sec. 11. or by Rules 13 and 19 be written on paper on which a stamp of the proper value with or without the word hundi has been engraved or embossed". ( 3 ) IF the above-mentioned Rule 5 alone had held the field the argument advanced by Mr. Doshi for the original defendants (applicants herein) would have been required to be upheld. However Rule 5 itself is subject to the exceptions provided by sec. 11 of the Indian Stamp Act or Rules 13 and 19 of the Saurashtra Stamp Rules. Rule 13 of the Sau- rashtra Stamp Rules in so far as it is relevant reads as follows: "chapter III. OF ADHESIVE STAMPS. However Rule 5 itself is subject to the exceptions provided by sec. 11 of the Indian Stamp Act or Rules 13 and 19 of the Saurashtra Stamp Rules. Rule 13 of the Sau- rashtra Stamp Rules in so far as it is relevant reads as follows: "chapter III. OF ADHESIVE STAMPS. "13 Use of adhesive stamps on certain instruments - The following instruments may be stamped with adhesive stamps namely : (a) Bills of exchange payable otherwise than on demand and drawn in sets when the amount of duty does not exceed one anna for each part of the set. (b) Transfer of debentures of public companies and associations. (c) Copies of maps or plans printed copies and copies of or extracts from regi- sters given on printed forms when chargeable with duty under Article 24 of Schedule I. (d) Instruments chargeable with stamp duty under articles 5 (a) and (b) and 43 of Schedule I. (e) Intruments chargeable with stamp duty under Article 47 of schedule I. (f) Instruments chargeable with stamp duty under Articles 19. 36 37 49 (a) (ii) and (iii) and 52 of Schedule I. ( 4 ) ITEM No. 49 at Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act reads as follows :"49 PROMISSORY NOTE (as defined by sec. 2 (22))- (A) when payable on demand- (i)When the amount or value does not exceed Rs. 250. 00 (Ten naye paise.) (ii) When the amount or value exceeds Rs. 250 but does not exceed Rs. 1000; (Fifteen naye paise.) (iii) in any other case. . . . . . (Twentyfive naye paise) 5 Reading Rule ( 5 ) WITH Rule 13 read with clause (iii) and (iii) of Item No. 49 in Schedule I appended to the Indian Stamp Act 1899 it is evident that adhesive stamps may be employed to pay the stamp duty for promissory notes of the valueexceeding Rs. 250. 00. ( 6 ) MR. Doshi then urged that the stamps affixed on the suit pro note mark 30/1 are not adhesive stamps but they are revenue stamps. Mr. Doshi for the applicants however could not make good his point by reference to any rules or regulations or any provisions having the force of law. 250. 00. ( 6 ) MR. Doshi then urged that the stamps affixed on the suit pro note mark 30/1 are not adhesive stamps but they are revenue stamps. Mr. Doshi for the applicants however could not make good his point by reference to any rules or regulations or any provisions having the force of law. ( 7 ) THE view which I have taken above was also taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Moorthy v. A. R. Kothandaraman reported in A. I. R. 1978 Madras page 412 where Sundaram J. dealt with identical rules of Tamil Nadu. Thus I find little merit in this revision application which is hereby rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order for application dismissed. .