The question arising in this appeal is whether Ext. Al document is a promissory note as contended by the plaintiff/ respondent herein or a bond as contended by the defendant/ appellant herein. The trial court found that Ext. Al satisfies all the requirements of a promissory note as defined in S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant contends that the trial court has wrongly interpreted Ext. Al as a promissory note. Since Ext. Al document was attested by two witnesses and it contained a default clause, that in case of default of the executant to pay the amount his assets will be liable for the amount due thereunder, the document could be only a bond and it could not have been admitted in evidence as a promissory note.

2. The relevant portion of Ext. Al document is as follows:

It was attested by two witnesses. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied on two decisions of the Bombay High Court in support of the contention of the appellant. In Jail Kumar Shivla! Shah and others v. Motilal Harahan Gandhi and another (AIR 1973 Bom. 27) the document which came up for in representation before the Co