S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7321/07 Laluram vs. Purna Shanker Date of order: 15.01.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. B.N.Kalla for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Purohit for the respondent. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial court dated 1.9.2007 by which the trial court held that the document in question, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.2, is a promissory note and cannot be admitted in evidence as requisite stamp duty has not been paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the document was written in the 'Bahi' and is only acknowledgment and is not a promissory note. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Mangi Lal vs. L.Rs. of Lal Chand (1995(1) RLW 231). It appears from Annex.2 that there is clear mention of the identified persons in the document itself. It contains the terms of payment of interest over the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- and there is a specific promise of the borrower to pay the amount. The reason for writing this document is not very much relevant because of the reason that one may admit his liability for past transaction also and may undertake to pay the amount and execute the promissory note. In this view of the matter, the document in question is certainly a promissory note and promissory note cannot be admitted in evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It will be worthwhile to mention here that in the case of Mangi Lal (supra), also there is writing in the 'bahi', but there was no promise to pay and, therefore, the said judgment has no application. The writ petition of the petitioner is, therefore, dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.