JUDGMENT - S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, J.:---The suit Bill of Exchange is drawn by one S. Babubhai, and Company and accepted by the firm of the 1st defendants in which defendants 2 and 3 are the partners. The suit Bill of Exchange was accepted by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendants in his capacity as a partner therein. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange. 2. The suit Bill of Exchange comprises of four sheets. On the first sheet bearing stamp of Rs. 10/-, the main body of the Bill of Exchange written. On the other three sheets bearing stamps of Rs. 10/-, and Rs. 1/- respectively and attached thereto, the said S. Babubhai and Co. as drawers as also the defendants in their capacity as acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange have subscribed their signatures. Each of the said three sheets attached to the first sheet of the suit Bill of Exchange mentions that the same is attached to the suit Bill of Exchange (Hundi) bearing No. 203 dated 19th October, 1987 for Rs. 61,181.30 falling due on 8-1-1988. Looking at the suit Bill of Exchange as a whole, it is apparent that the said three sheets attached to first sheet thereof cannot be used for or applied to any other instrument than the suit Bill of Exchange. If the stamps of all the said four sheets used for the suit Bill of Exchange are taken into consideration, the suit Bill of Exchange is properly and sufficiently stamped. 3. Mr. Kukreja, the learned Advocate appearing for Defendants 1 and 3, while relying upon the unreported Judgment of this Court being the Judgment dated 26th June, 1984 in Summary Suit No. 301 of 1978 as also Judgment of this Court in (Alen Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. R.H. Windsor (I) Ltd. and other)1, reported in 1988 (3) Bom. C.R. 143 has submitted that the suit Bill of Exchange is not sufficiently stamped and as such, cannot be admitted into evidence. The facts before Bharucha, J., in Summary Suit No. 301 of 1978 and before Guttal, J., in the case of Alen Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra) have been different than the facts of the case before me. C.R. 143 has submitted that the suit Bill of Exchange is not sufficiently stamped and as such, cannot be admitted into evidence. The facts before Bharucha, J., in Summary Suit No. 301 of 1978 and before Guttal, J., in the case of Alen Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra) have been different than the facts of the case before me. In the case before Bharucha J., the suit was filed against the acceptor of a Bill of Exchange and an objection was raised by the Counsel for the defendants to the admissibility of the Bill of Exchange on the ground that it was not duly stamped. Seventeen Hundi papers were stitched together to make up the value of stamp fee required. The Bill of Exchange was written only on the face of the first sheet. There was towards the bottom of the first sheet a round rubber stamp bearing the name of Veer Nariman Road Branch of the plaintiffs therein within which the following was written : "L.B.D. 2/22" The sixteen Hundi papers of the Bill of Exchange were blank except for the same round rubber stamp at the bottom of each with the same contents (emphasis supplied). In the evidence, it was established that at the time the Bill of Exchange was written, the sixteen Hundi papers of the Bill of Exchange subsequent to the first were altogether blank (emphasis supplied). In the circumstances, it was held that the Bill of Exchange cannot be said to have been written in such manner that the paper stamped with an impressed stamps upon which it was written could not be used for or applied to any other instrument and since the provisions of section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Rule 7 of the Rules made thereunder not being satisfied, the provisions of section 15 and consequently of section 35 of the said Act would be attracted. Hence, the Bill of Exchange was held to be unstamped and not receivable in evidence. Before Guttal J., the Hundi was written on the first sheet. Annexed to this sheet, were two additional blank Hundi papers, each of which bears the signature of 2nd defendant therein (emphasis supplied). No portion of the Hundi was written on these sheets. The three Hundi papers together made up the requisite stamp duty. On these facts, the question arose whether Hundi was duly stamped as required by law. Annexed to this sheet, were two additional blank Hundi papers, each of which bears the signature of 2nd defendant therein (emphasis supplied). No portion of the Hundi was written on these sheets. The three Hundi papers together made up the requisite stamp duty. On these facts, the question arose whether Hundi was duly stamped as required by law. On the facts of the case, it was held by Guttal J., that the instrument was so written that the second and third sheets could be used for or applied to another instrument and it amounted to contravention of section 13 of the said Act and Rule 7 made thereunder. Reliance in this case was placed on the said judgment of Bharucha, J. 4. The requirement of section 13 and Rule 7 relates to the point of time when the instrument is written. By definition in section 2(11) of the said Act, an instrument is duly stamped, if it bears adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with the law for the time being in force. Then section 13 requires that an instrument written upon paper stamped with an impressed stamp shall be written in such manner that "the stamp may appear on the face of the instrument and cannot be used or applied to any other instrument." Rule 7 of the Rules made under the Act lays down the manner in which an instrument, executed on more than one sheet, should be used. Where two or more sheets with engraved or embossed stamps are used to make the requisite stamp duty, it is necessary that "a portion of such instrument shall be written on each sheet so used." Section 14 of the Act prohibits writing of second instrument chargeable with duty upon the piece of stamped paper upon which an instrument chargeable with duty has already been written. The effect of contravention of section 13 and 14 read with rule 7 is that every instrument written on more than one sheet or paper, but not written in accordance with section 13 and Rule 7, shall be deemed to be unstamped. Finally, in view of section 35, an instrument chargeable with duty, shall not be admissible in evidence unless it is duly stamped. 5. Finally, in view of section 35, an instrument chargeable with duty, shall not be admissible in evidence unless it is duly stamped. 5. In the instant case, the suit Bill of Exchange is so written that each of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sheets has been signed by the said S. Babubhai and Co., as drawers thereof and also by the defendants as acceptors thereof at the time when the suit Bill of Exchange has been written and accepted. On each of the said sheets, there is an endorsement as follows : "Attached with Hundi No. 202 Dated 19-10-87 Rs. 61,181.30 Due date 8-1-88." On the first sheet of the suit Bill of Exchange. Hundi number as 202 and amount of Rs. 61,181.30 have been mentioned. The date of 19-10-1978 has also been mentioned. The said 2nd, 3rd and 4th sheets are also issued to the said S. Babubhai and Co., as the first sheet of the suit Bill of Exchange on the same date. Execution and acceptance of the suit Bill of Exchange form part of writing thereof on stamp paper. These writings on every annexure or additional Hundi paper attached and subjointed to the first sheet thereof remove the possibility of these annexure or additional Hundi papers being used for or applied to any other instrument and as such provision of section 13 read with Rule 7 are satisfied and suit Bill of Exchange is duly stamped. In the case of (Dena Bank v. M/s. Gladstone Lyall and Co. Ltd.)2 reported in 87 Bom. L.R. 477, Pratap J., of our Court in similar circumstances has held that the possibility of additional Hundi papers being 'used for or applied to' any other instrument is safely ruled out. Though I am in agreement with the principle laid down in the case before Bharucha, J., and by Guttal, J., in the case of Alen Co-operative Bank Ltd., in view of distinguishing features, the said rulings have no application to the facts of this case. 6. Mr. Kukreja has further submitted that there is no proper re-endorsement of Suit Bill of Exchange in favour of the plaintiffs and as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are the holders in due course of the suit Bill of Exchange. I have perused the endorsements made at the back of the first sheet of the suit Bill of Exchange. I have perused the endorsements made at the back of the first sheet of the suit Bill of Exchange. The first endorsement is by the plaintiffs in favour of 'Unit Trust of India or Order' and the 2nd endorsement is by Unit Trust of India in favour of the 'Plaintiffs or order without re-course.' Hence, the endorsement made by Unit Trust of India in favour of the plaintiffs Bank is proper and that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain this suit as holders in due course of the suit Bill of Exchange. It is also submitted on behalf of the defendants 1 and 3 that the drawers of the suit Bill of Exchange are not party to the suit. It is correct that the drawers are not party to this suit. However, under provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the defendants as acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange are liable thereunder as principal debtors and as such, the suit filed merely against the acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange is maintainable in law even though a separate suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the drawers of the suit Bill of Exchange on the basis of the suit Bill of Exchange alongwith other reliefs claimed therein. 7. Prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs got the suit Bill of Exchange presented through notary public for payment but the defendants failed and neglected to honour the same. A certificate of noting and protesting dated 7th April, 1989 has been issued which has been relied upon by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had demanded payment of the amount claimed in the suit from the defendants through their Advocates vide the letter dated 9th October, 1989 and though the defendants did receive the said letter of demand, no reply thereto was admittedly given by the defendants. 8. In the circumstances, the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants 1 and 3 in reply to the Summons for Judgment do not disclose any substantial defence. The defences intended to be raised on behalf of the defendants 1 and 3 are not substantial. Hence, I pass the following order : On the defendants 1 and 3 depositing in Court the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) within four weeks from today, leave to defendants 1 and 3 to defend the suit. The defences intended to be raised on behalf of the defendants 1 and 3 are not substantial. Hence, I pass the following order : On the defendants 1 and 3 depositing in Court the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) within four weeks from today, leave to defendants 1 and 3 to defend the suit. In the event of the defendants 1 and 3 depositing the amount as aforesaid, suit to be transferred to the list of Commercial Cause. Written statement or points of defence within four weeks thereafter. Affidavit of documents or list of documents within two weeks thereafter. Inspection and discovery forthwith thereafter. Suit to be placed on Board for hearing in the week commencing on 29th March, 1993. In the event of the defendants 1 and 3 depositing the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the Court as aforesaid, the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invest the said amount with Nationalised Bank, initially for a period of one year and to renew the same thereafter for suitable period until further orders of the Court. In the event of the defendants 1 and 3 not depositing the said amount as aforesaid, liberty to the plaintiffs to have the suit set down forthwith for hearing against defendants 1 and 3. Order accordingly. -----