THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P. NO.4895 of 2009 ORDER: 1 Revision petitioner who is plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Achampet, Mahabubnagar District filed this revision aggrieved by the docket order dated 19.09.2007 passed in the said suit where under the learned Junior Civil Judge held that the instrument upon which the suit claim is based is a security bond and consequently directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty to a tune of Rs.16,500/- 2 The undisputed facts that led to filing of this revision are that Petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of money to a tune of Rs.99,150/- together with costs and future interest from the date of suit till date of realization @ 36% p.a on Rs.50,000/- which is the principal amount based on a document dated 13.09.2003 styled as ‘Promissory Note’ said to have been executed by the respondent. The said document is containing the signatures of two persons who stood surety for the said amount. 3 The learned Junior Civil Judge, after numbering the suit passed the order, which is impugned in this revision and the same reads as follows: “One Scribe and one witness signed on the promissory note. Result: As per contents of the document, the document is security bond. Hence following stamp duty and penalty 1. Stamp Duty: Rs. 1,500-00 2. Ten Times Penalty: Rs. 15,000-00 ------------------- Rs.16,500-00 Stamp duty and penalty may be collected.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below erred in holding that the document based on which the suit claim was made is a security bond and further contended that the same is a promissory note and hence it ought not to have directed the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty. He further contended that the instrument herein fulfills all the requisite ingredients to be termed as Promissory Note and hence it cannot be treated as security bond merely because it contains the signatures of the scribe and a witness. The learned counsel further contended that the said two persons who signed underneath the said document are the guarantors for the suit amount and hence they signed on the said document and further contended that the said 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 the amount is not a bond. By placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the apex court in Bahadurrinisa Begum Vs. Vasu Dev Naick and others[1] the learned counsel contended that the document in question is a promissory note but not a bond. 5. This Court when directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notices, he sent personal notices and filed proof establishing the fact that the notices have been served on the respondents. Despite the said fact, the respondents have not put in their appearance. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the document in question. In order to decide the nature of the document in question i.e. whether it is a bond or is a promissory note, this court feels it apt to refer to the definitions of promissory note and bond and whether the ingredients of the document in question satisfies the requirements to term it as a Bond as held by the court below. 7. Firstly, Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines promissory note as under: A “promissory note” is an instrument in writing (not being a blank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, singed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. 8. So in view of the above definition, the essential requirements of promissory note are that a) It must be a written document, b) The maker must have signed it, c) There must be an un-conditional promise to pay, and d) The promise must be to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person called the Payee or his order or to the bearer. Besides fulfilling the terms of the definition, the instrument must pass the following three tests viz., a) The promise to pay must be substance of the instrument, b) There must be nothing else in-consistent with the character of the instrument as substantially a promise to pay, c) The instrument must be intended by the parties to be a Promissory Note. 9. Secondly, 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.” (underlining mine) 10. Keeping in view the above two definitions, when looked into the document in question this court is of a definite opinion that the said document is nothing but a Promissory Note, but not a bond since the said document fulfills all the essential requirements to treat the same as a Promissory note. There is a clear distinction in the definition itself that the promissory note should invariably contain a condition that it should be payable to order or bearer whereas in case of bond it is not so. Further, in so far as a promissory note is concerned, it should not contain any condition, but whereas the bond should contain a condition or an obligation. In the case on hand the document in question clearly fulfills the above two conditions i.e. the amount shall be paid to the plaintiff or to the bearer of the promissory note and no obligation has arisen under the said document. Hence it should be treated as a Promissory note, but not a bond. 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 that itself it cannot be construed as a ‘Bond’ for the reason that the respondent only accepts/acknowledges the debt due to the revision petitioner but no obligation is created on him. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Judge that the document comes within the description of Bond under Clause (b) of Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 is not sustainable under law and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside. 11 In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Achampet in O.S.No.31 of 2006 is hereby set aside. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------------------------- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 08.09.2010 Kvsn / BSB [1] AIR 1967 A. P. 123 (V54 C 37)