RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 21-8-2006 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Durg (FTC in Civil Suit No.10-B/2004 wherein the said Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/defendant for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. As per version of respondent/plaintiff, appellant/.defendant took loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30-5-1999 for his business and executed four promissory notes of Rs.25,000/- each in favour of respondent/plaintiff. It is also alleged that the appellant agreed orally to pay 2% interest per month thereon. Appellant did not pay the principal amount and interest that is why suit was filed and after hearing the parties, the trial Court has decreed the suit as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:

(i) The document produced by the respondent is not promissory note but a bond and bond must be properly stamped as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 otherwise, it is inadmissible in evidence.

(ii) No amount was paid to the appellant, therefore, said promissory note is a false document.

(iii) When the amount is not received by the ap