1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3958/2009. Kamla Devi Yadav. VERSUS Gokul Chand Jaga and Another. 10.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.S.L.Songara, for the petitioner. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the learned trial court accepting the application filed by the defendant-respondent for treating the document (Annexure-1) to be a bond and the same being insufficiently stamped, held that the same shall be admitted in evidence subject to payment of penalty. In the instant case, the document (Annexure-1), as has been found by the learned trial court is attested by two witnesses Badrinarayan and Babulal which is not in dispute. Considering the scope of the definition of “Bond” under Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act, this court in the case of M/s.M.M.Savings & Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Smt.Krishna Kumari and Others reported in RLW 1998 (1) Raj. 307 has held in para 8 of the report that “Attestation by a witness is an essential part of “Bond” under clauses (b) and (c).” 2 In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.