The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the intention of the parties and the substance of the document in determining whether a document is a promissory note or not.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) FIRST petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered with the registrar of Firms. Second petitioner is one of its registered partner. Petitioners had filed a suit for recovery against the respondents who are the wife and son respectively of late Shri O. S. Khosla.

( 2 ) I would be referring to the parties as plaintiffs and defendants respectively.

( 3 ) A recovery suit was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants have inherited the estate of late Shri O. S. Khosla who took a loan in sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the first plaintiff. Acknowledging the loan and agreeing to repay the same within 1 year together with interest @24% per annum, a writing was stated to have been executed by late Shri O. S. Khosla which reads as under:-

"i, O. S. Khosla s/o Late Shri V. N. Khosla r/o B-11/8262, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi hereby acknowledge that I have received a loan amount of Rs. 25000/- from M/s. Packing Paper Sales, 2483, Chhipiwara Kalan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 through its partner Shri G. K. Jain through cheque bearing No. 105229 drawn upon Allahabad bank, Hauz Qazi Branch, Delhi-110 006. I promise to pay back the loan amount to Shri G. K. Jain, partner of M/s. Packing paper Sales, within one year from today i. e. 22. 10. 1991 within one year from 22. 10. 1991 along with interest @24% per annum. Sd/- (O. S. Khosla)"

( 4 ) THAT, loan was taken on 22. 10. 1991. Same was not repaid. On 6. 6. 1994, another acknowledgment with a promise to pay back the loan was stated to have been executed by late Shri O. S. Khosla. The acknowledgment coupled with a promise to pay reads as under:-

"it is acknowledge be me today on 6. 6. 1994 that I O. S. Khosla son of Late Shri v. N. Khosla resident of B-11/8262, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi has taken a loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- from M/s. Packing Paper Sales, 2483, Chhipiwar Kalan, Chawri bazar, Delhi-110006 through its partner Shri G. K. Jain on interest @24% per annum. And I promise to pay it back within six months. I will also pay the upto date interest. Sd/- (OM SARUP KHOSLA)"

( 5 ) RS. 2,000/- towards interest was paid by late Shri O. S. Khosla. Acknowledging the loan and promising to repay the same as also requesting to waive the interest, on 4. 11. 1996, late Shri O. S. Khosla was stated to have executed a writing which reads as under:-

"this is acknowledged today on 4. 11. 1996 by me that I O. S. Khosla son of Late shri V. N. Khosla resident of B-11/8262, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi shall pay back the loan amount of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to M/s. Packing paper Sales, 2483, Chhipiwara Kalan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 through its partner Shri G. K. Jain. I have already paid the amount of Rs. 2000/-(Rs. Two thousand only) in cash to shri G. K. Jain towards the interest amount. I am very ill and I am unable to pay the interest. It is requested that interest amount may be forgone. Sd/- (OM SARUP KHOSLA)"

( 6 ) STATING that the defendants, being the wife and son respectively of late Shri O. S. Khosla inherited his estate, since principal i. e. Rs. 25,000/- as also interest in sum of Rs. 18,000/- from November 1996 to October 1999 was repayable, defendants were liable to repay the same.

( 7 ) SO alleging, recovery suit was filed.

( 8 ) WHEN witnesses of the plaintiff were being examined and the 3 afore noted writings stated to have been executed by late Shri O. S. Khosla were sought to be proved, an objection was raised to the admissibility of the documents alleging that the same were promissory notes and requisite stamp duty not having been paid or affixed thereon, the same were inadmissible in evidence.

( 9 ) PLEA taken by the plaintiff was that being acknowledgments, documents were liable to be regularized by paying the requisite penalty as also the stamp duty, which was offered to be paid, hence plaintiffs stated that the documents should be treated as admissible in evidence and plaintiff be permitted to prove the same in accordance with law.