The only question to be considered in this case is whether document dated 24.6.1998 is a bond or an agreement. The court below held it is a bond and impounded the document under section 33 of the Stamps Act and ordered that the plaintiff is at liberty to seek admission of the document after paying deficit stamp duty as provided under proviso (a) to section 34 of the Stamp Act.

2. Petitioner herein was the plaintiff in a suit for realisation of money. According to the plaintiff on 24.6.1998 defendant had executed a document undertaking to pay plaintiff on or before 31.01.1999 an amount of Rs.20,000/- borrowed by him earlier. This was in the form of an agreement which was signed by the plaintiff and defendant and was signed by two witnesses. Same was executed on stamp paper of Rs.50/-. Though several notices where sent by the plaintiff, there was no response and hence he filed the suit on 11.06.2001. When the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 he wanted to mark the agreement dated 24.06.1998 which was objected to on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. Contention raised by the defendant was that it was a bond and therefore required stamp duty and only after payment