IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5912 OF 2007 Between : Bathina Surya Rao ... PETITIONER A N D Kedrisetty Sunil Kumar. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5912 OF 2007 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 15.11.2007, in O.S.No.619 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, whereunder and whereby, the document, dated 16.06.2003, which was sought to be marked as exhibit was allowed on payment of stamp duty and penalty. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the document now sought to be received is a promissory note, but not a bond and, therefore, it is not liable for stamp duty and penalty. He placed reliance on a decision reported in Smt Pulluru Vajramma V. More Agaiah[1], wherein it was held thus: “Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes the following requirements for a promissory note:- 1) it must be a written document, 2) the maker must have signed it, 3) there must be an unconditional promise to pay and 4) the promise must be to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person, called the payee, or to his order. It is not the lower Court’s objection that the other requirements are not satisfied in this case. Its only objection is based on the absence of the words ‘or his order.’ The document apparently satisfied all the requirements and the intention of the parties is clear from the recitals. When the intention of the parties is clear from the document and all the substantial ingredients of a promissory note are present, there shall not be any objection to treat it as a promissory note simply because one expression in absent.” 4. As could be seen from the above decision, one of the conditions to attract the document as promissory note is that there must be unconditional promise to pay that amount. As seen from the document, there is no such unconditional promise to pay the amount. On the other hand, there is a condition incorporated in the document that if the amount is not paid within three months, the loanee can take possession of the property as mentioned therein. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, the document sought to be received can be treated as a promissory note. Once, the document falls within the meaning of an instrument under Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘the Act’), it cannot be received as evidence for any purpose under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 04, 2011. YVL [1] AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 2