( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Guntur dated 13/03/2001 in OS No. 30 of 1998 in determining the disputed document as an acknowledgment of debt and therefore the same is not liable to any stamp duty and accordingly overruled the objections of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of certain amount based on vouchers said to have been executed by the defendant, not only in the name of the plaintiff but also in the name of some other persons. In the said suit, the defendant s case is that in respect of various vouchers, cheques were issued for repayment and in the process of encashment of the blank cheques issued, the amount drawn by the plaintiff in the present suit and the other connected suits have exceeded the amount and therefore the plaintiff executed a letter. The plaintiff in the other suit T. Nayarana Rao executed a document as per the settlement between the parties, wherein the above facts were admitted and also finally admitted his liability to refund a sum of Rs. 23,33,410. 00 and also promised to pay the same within six months. The said document was sought to be marked as an exhibit through the defendant. This was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that the said document is a promissory note and it is not being properly stamped. Therefore, the said document is inadmissible in evidence. Thereafter, the learned District Judge heard both sides in support of their contentions and thereafter relying upon a full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Bolisetti Bhavanarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, 1996 (1) ALT 917 (FB), held that the disputed document is neither a promissory note nor a bond but is only an acknowledgment of debt. Therefore, the objection raised by the plaintiff is not tenable and accordingly overruled the objection and marked the same as an exhibit. Aggrieved by that the plaintiff has come up in the present revision.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the Court-below has committed grievous error in passing the above order. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the document- promissory note was defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The same was also referred under Section 2 (22) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the stamp Act ). If these two provisions are read together, as there is a promise by one party to the other party to pay a certain sum, the said document has to be treated as promissory note. Therefore, the view taken by the learned District Judge is clearly in error. The learned Counsel also contended that the document, which was executed between the parties, whether it is a negotiable or not is not relevant, as per the decision of this Court in the case of Polla Rama Rao v. Dadi Narasimha Rao, (Died) Dadi Manikyamma and Ors. 1984 LS 114. The learned Counsel also contended that even with reference to the negotiability of such document is also not relevant in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mabu Saheb v. Krishna Murthy, 1997 (2) ALT 292. The learned Counsel also contended that whether a document would come within the purview of the definition of promissory note as defined under the relevant provisions was considered by the Madras High Court in the matter of Kuppu Swamy, AIR 1955 Mad. 652 (FB ). As per the said judgment the omission of the expression "to the order of would not render a document any the less a promissory note if otherwise it fulfilled the terms of the definition of promissory note. According to the learned Counsel, as per the above judgment if there is an unconditional promise to pay certain amount, the document evidencing such transaction would amount to a promissory note. The learned Counsel also relied on the decisions in R. Kannusamy v. V. V. K. Samy and Co. , Singapore, AIR 1988 Mad. 336; Thenappa v. Andiyappa, AIR 1971 Mad. 290; Raj Bahadur Si