THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P. NO.5095 of 2008 ORDER: 1 Revision petitioner who is second defendant in O.S.No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar filed this revision aggrieved by the docket order dated 12.08.2008 passed in the said suit where under the learned Judge allowed the document dated 24.12.1999 said to have been executed by the revision petitioner to be marked as an exhibit in evidence. 2 The undisputed facts that lead to the filing of this revision are that Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of money to a tune of Rs.23,26,450/- together with costs and future interest from the date of suit till date of realization @ 12% p.a on Rs.10,92,000/- based on several promissory notes and a document dated 24.12.1999 styled as ‘Note’ said to have been executed by the revision petitioner and was described as Ex.A.11 in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. The contention of the respondent/plaintiff is that the said document is a ‘Note’ executed by the revision petitioner in his favour describing the events of loan transaction and the settlement, and that it is on requisite non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- and hence it can be marked as exhibit. Revision petitioner objected for marking it as an exhibit inasmuch as the said document amounts to a bond and that it is not on requisite stamp and that unless deficit stamp duty and 10 times penalty is levied, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. 3 The learned I Additional District Judge, while extracting the recitals of the entire document over ruled the objection put forth by the revision petitioner and admitted the said document in evidence observing that the document as a whole has to be considered and it is not desirable to truncate the contents and take a part and reject another part, a document cannot be regarded as a bond unless it is one which by itself create an obligation to pay money and mere admission of liability to pay amount is not a bond. The learned Judge further observed that even though the document was attested by a witness, it does not come within the description of a bond and it comes within the description of an ‘Instrument’ Under Article 6(C) of Schedule – I.A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for which requisite stamp is only Rs.100/- and ultimately gave a finding that the said document is admissible in evidence. As stated supra, aggrieved by the said order, the second defendant in the suit preferred this revision. 4 The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. Y. Koteswara Rao is that the document dated 24.12.1999 is a bond and not an instrument. As per Section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, the plaintiff is bound to pay stamp duty and penalty of 10 times because the said document creates an obligation on the revision petitioner to pay certain amount to the plaintiff as per the schedule given therein. It is his further contention that the said document was attested by one Tadi Sivaji as a witness and it also contains the signature of the executant i.e. the revision petitioner and so it satisfies all the required ingredients to term it as a bond as prescribed under section 2 (5) of the Indian Stamp Act. 5 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the document in question is a ‘Note’ whereby the revision petitioner obliged himself to pay certain amount of money to the respondent/plaintiff and the ingredients of the said document do not come with the purview of ‘bond’ and the learned trial Judge has applied his mind judiciously in admitting the said document into evidence and hence the order impugned does not call for interference at the hands of this court. 6 In order to decide the nature of the document in question i.e. whether it is a bond or is a note, this court feels it apt to refer to the definition of bond and whether the ingredients of the document in question satisfy the requirements to term it as a Bond. Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 defines Bond: Bond: ‘Bond’ includes (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another.” 7 Execution of the document by the revision petitioner is not in dispute. But a scan of the entire document shows that the revision petitioner acknowledges the debt due to the respondent, but by the said document itself there is no obligation created on the revision petitioner. No doubt, the document is attested by a witness as required in Clause (b) of the 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989, but by itself it cannot be construed as a ‘Bond’ for the reason that the revision petitioner only accepts/acknowledges the debt due to the respondent and as no obligation is crated on him. It is only a pre-existing liability, which can be enforced apart from the present document. Moreover, a reading of the entire document also reveals the intention of the revision petitioner to make the payments the mode in which he wants. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Judge that the document comes within the description of Instrument under Article 6 (C) of Schedule I A of Indian Stamp Act, 1989 according to which the document is reduced on a stamp worth Rs.100/- is admissible in evidence, does not call for any interference. 8 Therefore, I find no merit in this revision and hence the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------------- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 15-09-2009. Kvsn