Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 6-7-1995 in I.A. No. 316 of 1995 in O.S. No. 456 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed the suit O.S. No. 456 of 1992 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,590/- alleging that on the morning of 19-10-1989, the respondents borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her as hand loan at Nachiarkoil and on that evening they executed a voucher in a non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs. 5/- in evidence of the same end as an acknowledgment of the amount received from the petitioner, repayable together with interest at 12% per annum on demand. Since the respondents have not paid th e amount in spite of repeated demands, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to pay the entire amount due. The said notice was returned with the endorsement “Left India”. The suit was thereupon filed for the recovery of the principle amount of Rs. 10,000/- due under the voucher given by the respondents on 19-10-1989 together with interest at 12% per annum, in all amounting to Rs. 13,590/- with subsequent interest. 3. The suit was resisted by the respondents. They denied the execution of any document on 19-10-1989 much less a voucher and that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the same on the basis of the said document. 4. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 316 of 1995 praying that the question viz. , the admissibility of the voucher dated 19-10-1989 as a document on the side of the petitioner, be tried as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the conduct of the trial of the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of that petition, the petitioner had stated that the respondents on the morning of 19-10-1989 received as hand loan a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and in evidence of the same had executed a voucher on the same evening. In the affidavit filed in support of that petition, the petitioner had stated that the respondents on the morning of 19-10-1989 received as hand loan a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and in evidence of the same had executed a voucher on the same evening. It was further alleged that the trial of the suit was taken up, that the petitioner was being examined to prove her case, that in the course of her adducing evidence, the voucher stated to have been executed by the respondents was sought to be marked, that the same was objected to by the respondents on the ground that the document in question is not admissible and that therefore, the question of admitting or otherwise of the document be tried as a preliminary issue. 5. The respondents filed their counter to the said petition and contended therein that the document in question is treated as a promissory note, that the same is to be rejected as it is not properly stamped, that if the document is treated as a hand loan, necessary stamp duty has to be paid and that therefore, the document cannot be marked as it is not permissible in evidence. 6. The learned District Munsif held that since as per Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act and Sec. 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- not having been supported by a promissory note and the same not having been produced before Court, the document in question dated 19-10-1989 though written on a five rupee stamp paper is a substitution for the promissory note cannot be accepted. The trial court further held that the recitals in the document do not reveal that it is a voucher or a receipt and that therefore, the same cannot be received in evidence. Questioning the correctness of the said order, the petitioner has preferred the above revision. 7. It could be seen from the plaint allegations that the petitioner had stated that the respondents had borrowed as hand loan a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the morning of 19-10-1989 and on that evening, a voucher had been executed on a Rs. 5/- non-judicial stamp paper to evidence the borrowing and to acknowledge the receipt of money. 7. It could be seen from the plaint allegations that the petitioner had stated that the respondents had borrowed as hand loan a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the morning of 19-10-1989 and on that evening, a voucher had been executed on a Rs. 5/- non-judicial stamp paper to evidence the borrowing and to acknowledge the receipt of money. Thus, the case as pleaded by the petitioner is, that the document in question is a voucher. 8. The term ‘voucher’ as defined in New Websters Dictionary of the English language is as follows: “One who or that vouches, as for something, a book, a document, stamp or the like, which serve to prove the truth of something; a receipt or other written evidence, as of the payment of money”. In P. Ramanatha Aiyers Law Lexican, Reprint “Document establishing payment of money or truth Edition, 1987 ‘voucher’ has been defined as of accounts”. 9. In this context, it is relevant to refer to certain definitions which occur in Sec. 2(11), 2(13), 2(23) and 35 and Article 53 of the Indian Stamp Act. The term “Duly stamped” has been defined in Sec. 2 (11) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as follows: “‘Duly stamped’ as applied to an instrument, means that the instrument bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with law for time being in force in India.” 10. It is necessary that an instrument to be duly stamped should be stamped with a stamp not only of the amount required by law, but also in the manner prescribed by law, the law, being contained in the rules under the Act as well as in the Act itself. “Duly stamped” would mean, stamped with the value and description of stamp required by the law in force when the instrument was executed or first executed. The true scope of the rule of substance prevailing over the form with reference to a document chargeable to stamp duty is that the recitals therein should not be lost sight of merely because the parties gave a particular description of the nature of the document. The true scope of the rule of substance prevailing over the form with reference to a document chargeable to stamp duty is that the recitals therein should not be lost sight of merely because the parties gave a particular description of the nature of the document. An instrument to be duly stamped (i) must bear the proper description of stamp; (ii) the stamp must be of the proper amount; and (iii) the stamp must be affixed or used according to the law or rules for the time being in force in India, and properly cancelled. In determining whether a document is sufficiently stamped for the purpose of deciding upon its admissibility in evidence, the Court will look at the document as it stands and not at any collateral circumstances which may be shown in evidence. When the question is, whether a document bears a sufficient stamp, the document must be looked at as it stands. Therefore, every instrument which is required to be stamped is said to be duly stamped if the instrument bears adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount. The proper amount of stamp for a receipt which is of the value of more than Rs. 500/- is Re. 1/-. A receipt can be said to be duly stamped if it bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than Re. 1/- if the value of the receipt is more than Rs. 500/-. A receipt can thus bear adhesive stamp or be on an impressed stamp. 11. “Impressed stamp” is defined in Sec. 2(13) of the Act and it includes (a) labels affixed or impressed by the proper office; and (b) stamp embossed or engrossed on stamp paper. The stamps are of two kinds, i.e., impressed stamps and adhesive stamps. Ordinarily, all kinds of adhesive stamps including special adhesive stamps are ‘labels’ as mentioned in the Stamp Act. They come within the artificial definition of ‘impressed1 stamp’ as contemplated in Sec. 2(13) of the Act, if they are affixed and impressed by the ‘proper officer’ they remain merely adhesive stamps. The labels, affixed and impressed or perforated by means of a stamping or perforating machine comes within the definition of ‘impressed stamps’. 12. They come within the artificial definition of ‘impressed1 stamp’ as contemplated in Sec. 2(13) of the Act, if they are affixed and impressed by the ‘proper officer’ they remain merely adhesive stamps. The labels, affixed and impressed or perforated by means of a stamping or perforating machine comes within the definition of ‘impressed stamps’. 12. The term “Receipt” has been defined in Sec. 2(23) of the Act, which runs thus: “‘Receipt’ includes any note, memorandum or writing— a) Whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to have been received, or b) Whereby any other movable property is acknowledged to have been received satisfaction of a debt, or c) Whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied, or discharged, or d) Which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person.” It is clear from the definition of the term “receipt” that it includes any memorandum whereby money received as acknowledged. Such a receipt has to be stamped as per Articles 53 of the Act. 13. Article 53 of the Act thus: Description of Instruments Proper stamp duty 53. Receipt as defined by Section 2(23) for any money or other property the amount or value of which exceeds five hundred rupees. One rupee. Therefore, an instrument written or embossed or engrossed on stamp paper, that is ‘impressed stamp’ and which is ‘duly stamped’ and which satisfies the definition of ‘receipt’ under Sec. 2(23) of the Act and stamped in accordance with Article 53 of the Act, would, satisfy the requirements of the Act. 14. Sec. 35 of the Act deals with the inadmissibility of the instruments in evidence not duly stamped. The said section runs thus: “35. Instruments not only duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. 14. Sec. 35 of the Act deals with the inadmissibility of the instruments in evidence not duly stamped. The said section runs thus: “35. Instruments not only duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that- a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten nayepaise only, or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion, b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it; c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter 12 or Chapter 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by Sec. 32 or any other provision of this Act.” 15. Tamil Nadu State Amendment to Clause (a) of the proviso to Sec. 35 of the Act reads as follows: “a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not executing twenty paise only or a mortgage or crop. Under Sec. 3, with a duty of fifty paise or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or when ten times the amount of the property duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion.” 16. The above section applies to Judges, arbitrators and local Commissioners. It is the duty of a Judge of a safeguard the interest of the Revenue and take action suo motu, whether the counsel objects to the admissibility of a document or not. The defect cannot be cured, even by consent of the parties. The prohibition contained in the section does not apply to proceedings in Criminal Courts other than proceedings under Chapter 12 or Chapter 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section does not apply to an instrument upon which no duty is chargeable. This section contains a rule of procedure and regulates the manner in which unstamped or insufficiently stamped instruments are to be dealt with, though they were executed before this Act was passed. The amount of the penalty is to be counted in accordance with the present section though the duty is charged according to some old Act. This section makes an unstamped document inadmissible in evidence, and unable to be acted upon by persons having authority to receive or by public officer. It does not affect the validity of the document, but its admissibility in evidence. A plain reading of the section would show that it creates a three fold bar in respect of unstamped and insufficiently stamped document viz., (a) that it shall not be received in evidence; (b) that it shall not be acted upon; and (c) that it shall not be registered or authenticated. A plain reading of the section would show that it creates a three fold bar in respect of unstamped and insufficiently stamped document viz., (a) that it shall not be received in evidence; (b) that it shall not be acted upon; and (c) that it shall not be registered or authenticated. It is, therefore, manifest that before a party can ask the Court to give it relief on the basis of a document, it shall have to cross the hurdle of Sec. 35 of the Act to enable the Court not only to receive such a document in evidence but also to enable it to act upon it, failure to stamp a document which has got to be stamped under the provisions of the Stamp Act does not affect the validity of the transaction embodied in the document; it merely renders the document inadmissible in evidence. A promissory note not duly stamped cannot be used in evidence for any purpose with the result the writing therein cannot be used as an acknowledgment of claim. Similarly, when the promissory note is unstamped, it is inadmissible in evidence. 17. We have already seen the term “receipt” as defined in Articles 53 and as defined in Sec. 2(23) of the Act. The proper stamp duty payable for any money or other property, the amount or value of which exceeds Rs. 500/- is Re. 1/-. A receipt is the converse of an acknowledgment, for while acknowledgment is held by the creditor to show existence of the debt, a receipt is held by the debtor to show the discharge of the debt. However, it may be noted that for an acknowledgment to be liable to stamp duty under Article I, it is essential that it should have been executed “in order to supply evidence of such debt”, but, in case of a receipt, no condition as to the purpose for which it is executed, is an essential ingredient. It is not necessary to have a receipt given in any specific term; it is sufficient if it purports to be a discharge of a liability. 18. The document which is sought to be marked as voucher/receipt, reads as follows: Five Rupees non-judicial stamp paper. Tamil Written by . North Street, Nachiarkoil. 19. It is not necessary to have a receipt given in any specific term; it is sufficient if it purports to be a discharge of a liability. 18. The document which is sought to be marked as voucher/receipt, reads as follows: Five Rupees non-judicial stamp paper. Tamil Written by . North Street, Nachiarkoil. 19. In the light of the above discussion, we have to see whether the document in question, which has been written on a stamped paper of Rs. 5/- is duly stamped. This document having been written on an ‘impressed stamp’ (stamp paper) and having been duly stamped (Rs. 5/- stamp paper), it satisfies the definition of ‘receipt’ as defined in Sec. 2(23) of the Act and is stamped in accordance with Article 53 of the Act. It thus satisfies the requirements of law as to stamp. As the document satisfies the requirements laid down in the Act, the same would be entitled to be received in evidence, though subject to proof and relevance. 20. It is contended by Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondents, that the revision petition filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not maintainable as the impugned order has not decided the rights of parties and the impugned order is not one by which the suit itself is decided. I am unable to countenance the said contention. In my opinion, the Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it properly and when the Court has acted against the materials available on record, this Court, in my opinion, can exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and grant relief to the parties who approach this Court. The order of the Court below cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be interfered with. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the Court below is set aside and the trial court is directed to mark the voucher dated 19-10-1989 executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner as a document on the side of the petitioner and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently C.M.P. No. 16483 of 1995 is dismissed as no longer necessary.