A. SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the respondent has been served on 20th of May 1978, he has nas not appeared or has engaged any counsel.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff objecting to the rejection by the trial Court of his request to mark document dated 5-12 -72 as a Promissory note. It appears that earlier, it was received only as a bond, but that does not detract from the right of the Court to treat any document before it in its proper perspective. Since the words or order in the document, the lower Court, purporting to follow, in the matter of Kuppusami Chettiar (AIR 1955 Mad 652) (FB) upheld the defendants contention and refused to receive the document as a Promissory note It should be remembered that it had already been received is evidence and forms part of the record. I do not think that the lower Court is right in refusing to recognise the document as a promissory note 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 certain sum of money t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document