( 1 ) NEITHER the order of reference made by the learned single Judge, nor that made by the Division Bench gives any definite indication as to the specific question or questions referred to the Full Bench. The learned single Judge felt that:"there is a conflict in the Divisional Bench decisions of this Court in ramakistaiah vs. Yellappa (AIR 1959 A. P. 653) and P. Ramana Reddy vs. K. Rukminamma (1968 (1) An. W. R. 221) with regard to applicability of explanation (i) to Section 13 (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in deciding whether a document is a promissory note within the definition of Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act". The Divisional Bench also felt that there was a divergence of opinion as to the nature of the suit document, which required to be settled at rest by a Full Bench in view of its general importance. To quote the words of the Division Bench:"as stated supra, there are conflicting views expressed in the two earlier judgments i. e. , Ramakistiah s case (1st supra) and State Bank s case (2nd supra) and the later judgment in Ramana Reddi s case (3rd supra ). As the interpretation as to whether the document in question is a promisso