THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.912 of 2010 07.04.2010 Between: Sri Balaji Chit Funds, Eluru ….Petitioner AND Bayyana Narayana Rao and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.912 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.775 of 2007 based on a promissory note dated 05.02.2002 allegedly executed by respondents/defendants for a sum of Rs.28,750/-. During trial, when plaintiff sought to mark promissory note, defendant raised objection that the said document attracts stamp duty under entry 49(b) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, it requires stamp duty and penalty. By order, dated 30.11.2009, the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, directed petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty for marking promissory note as exhibit. The trial Court came to conclusion that the said promissory note is executed for future liability and therefore, it can be enforceable in case of future default. Aggrieved by the said order, civil revision petition is filed. This Court ordered notice to respondents and permitted the counsel for petitioner to take out personal notice. Accordingly notice was taken out by counsel for petitioner, who filed memo of proof of service vide U.S.R.No.420 of 2010. Second respondent is duly served. Notice sent to first respondent vide registered cover RLAD A 9737, dated 15.03.2010 was returned by postal authority with an endorsement ‘N/C’ (not claimed). Therefore, as per the decision of Supreme Court in C.C.Alavi Haji v Palapetty Mohammed[1], notice sent to first respondent is deemed to have been served. There is no appearance for respondents 1 and 2 and they are set ex parte. This Court heard counsel for petitioner and is not able to agree with the view taken by trial Court. The suit promissory note reads as under. ON DEMAND I/We jointly and severally promise to pay to SRI BALAJI CHIT FUNDS, ELURU, Rep. by its Foreman Sri Kanala Naga Venkata Satyanarayana or order the sum of Rs.28,750/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand seven hundred fifty only) repayable with interest at 12 percent per annum of Chit Group No.29/50,000/-. The above document is patently a promissory note and the defendants jointly and severally promised to pay petitioner/plaintiff or order a sum of Rs.28,750/-. Therefore, the conclusion that it falls under entry 49 (b) of Schedule I of Stamp Act is not correct. It is a promissory note which attracts stamp duty under entry 49 (a) of Schedule I of Stamp Act. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 30.11.2009. The trial Court is directed to receive promissory note and mark the same. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07.04.2010 Pln [1] (2007) 6 SCC 555