IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SR4I JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4540 of 2008 Between: S. Veeraiah ... PETITIONER AND Soma Raghunath and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: Defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2006 filed this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the docket order passed by the trial Court with regard to the treating the suit document a promissory note instead of an agreement and contents that the document in question answers the description of a bond as defined under Section 2 (5) of the Indian Stamp Act. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount on the basis of the said suit document describing the document as a promissory note. The marking of the said document was objected by the defendant on the ground that it is not a promissory note as it does not contain recitals that it is payable to the order or bearer of the instrument and consequently falls outside the definition of the promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. It appears that the office of the Court below treated this document as an agreement and required the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty of Rs.1100/- which has been paid. The order impugned, therefore, permits the plaintiff to mark the said document on that basis and proceed with the trial. 4. Mr.T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants have raised a valid objection under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and the said objection has been decided at the threshold. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.D. NYAMATHULLA V. A. CHITHARANJAN REDDY[1] as well as the decision of a learned single Judge in KURAYAGALA SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA v. SHAIK AMEER SAHEB[2]. 5. Learned counsel also filed a copy of the original document and as well as English translation which is provided along with the revision petition and submits that in the absence of the crucial words of the amount being payable to the order or bearer the said document cannot be treated as a promissory note and ceases to be a Negotiable Instrument. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary relies upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in BOLISETTI BHAVANNARAYANA @ VENKATA BHAVANNARAYANA v. KOMMURU VULLAKKI CLOTH MERCHANT FIRM, TENALI AND OTHERS[3] for the proposition that while construing the document in the category of promissory note Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is wholly irrelevant when it comes to deciding the nature of a particular document. He particularly relies upon the decision of the Full Bench and the following sentence in paragraph No.2: “Similarly and for similar reasons, it is wholly irrelevant to refer to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act while deciding the nature of any document as a ‘bond’ or otherwise.” 7. Keeping in view of the rival contentions and the nature of the document and the legal position relied upon by both the parties, I am of the view that the aspect relating to the nature of the suit document aforesaid including the objection raised by the revision petitioner in Court thereto will have to be considered by the trial Court by framing the specific issue while deciding the suit. 8. The suit filed by the respondent in 2006 is held up at the stage of trial on account of the aforesaid controversy. I am, therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to dispose of the revision petition with the following directions: 1. The trial Court shall frame the additional issue with regard to the nature of the suit document and hear the parties and decide the said issue along with the suit, in accordance with law. 2. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit by permitting the marking of the said document. However, the marking of the said document is treated as subject to the adjudication of the objection of the defendant and shall be treated as an objection raised by the defendant under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and he would not be precluded from agitating the said objection not with standing the marking of the document. 3. The trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any case before end of December 2010. 9. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 01, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4540 of 2008 July 01, 2010 [1] 2008 (3) ALD 303 (DB) [2] 2008 (6) ALD 155 [3] 1996 (2) ALD 424 (F.B.)