(^^M^ 5e ^^ft^7&l;u IN THE HON'RLE HIRH rnilPT OFCRHATTISGARH^ i p ; AT BILASPTIR W.P. funder Article 227) No. /2009 •^.^1 f^^' ^.^"' PETITIONER DEFENDANT ^}^s^w~' !^>^S^"i RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF 6A) shyam Ratan S/o. Feru Satnami,Api4>6^^ R/o. village Dhourabhata, Tahsil & Police Station - Saja, District Durg (CG) VERSUS (3? Agrahit S/o. Bhulau Ram Dhobi^ (Nirmalkar), R/o. village Thelka, Tahsil - Saja Police Station - Than Khamharia District - Dun (CG) r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICT-F 29,7 QF THE CONSI!TUTIONOF INDIA" \J^ i^.^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sjnale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra W.P.(227lhto. 39 of 2008 Shyam Ratan. Versus Agrahit. ORDER Postfor (f -05-2011 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge /0-05-2011 •^y^ •-. t..'-a^JJ %.. ^^~;^../ '^••^^ •-U HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SttftSPUR Sinate Bench: Hon*bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petitfon (2271 No. 39 of 2009 PETITIONER Shyam Ratan. Vereus RESR3NDENT Agrahit. Shri V. A. Goverdhan. counsel for the pefitioner. Shri Kunal Das, oounset for tfio reopondont. ORDER (|( /08/2011) In this petition under Arttete 227 of the ConstituUon of Indiai the petitioner/ctefendant has calted in question the order dated 17/11/2008 passed bythe trial Courtdeciding issue No.3 and additional issue No. 1 in favour of plaintjff/respondent. (2) The plaintiff/respondent has filed suit for recovety of Rs,73,000/- on the basis of a document captioned as agreement executed by the defendanton 23/02/2006. (3) The petitioner/defendant raised an objectwm in. his written statement that the agreement is in fact a bond and not a promissory note and since the said bond is not adequately stamped, the same is not admissibte in evidence and the suit is not maintainabto. The (rial Court framed issue No.3 as to whether the document is not dyfy stampe<* and registered making the suit not mainlainable and asto whether ttie document is a bond. Both the issues have been decktod by the petitioner/defendant to hold that the document is a promissory note and ^. the suit is maintainabte. 9 -A- (4) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition it would appear ttiat in the agreement (Annexure P/3) the promissee has obtained loan of Rs.73.00(y- and has mortgagecl his land bearing KhasraNQ.1420area 0.27 RA as a security for repayment of loan and has ateo agreed to pay interest @ 3% per month wBh a promise to repay th©amountwithin two yeare. (5) Objectfon rafeed by the petitioner/defendant was that the sublect instrument Is a bond and is nota promissory note, however on a r^l^g of a document it appears that it also contains etements <rf a deed of mortgage, therefore the question asto whether the documenit is a promissory note or a bond or is a deed of mortgage is requfred to be determined during the course of trial on merits and when the document is ©xhibitedfor proofduring evidence. (6) Since the impugned order does not deal with the issue elaborately, it would be in the frtness of things to direct the trial Court to ctecicte the issue regardjng construcUon of document when it is exhibited for proof during evidence. It is directed accordingly. It is also observed that the trial Court shall decide the issue wtthout being influenced by ite eartier order (the impugned order) as well as the observations made by this Court. (7) With the above observation, the instant writ petitton stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge )^