1. The question before the court below was whether the document dated 1-4-1980 was a promissory note, admissible in evidence as a properly stamped instrument; and it took the view that the document was just an agreement, and not a promissory note. It is that view which is now being questioned in this revision.

2. The document was executed by the respondents in favour of the plaintiff, and its contents disclosed the following:

(i) the defendants had received Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff in cash, as a loan;

(ii) the defendants would regularly pay interest on the principal amount, every month, at 12 per cent;

(iii) the principal amount would itself be repaid on receipt of a month's notice; and

(iv) if payment was not made as above, the liability could be enforced against the defendants' properties:

The recitals in the documents were also to the effect that the parties were construing the document as a promissory note.

3. One of the contentions of the defendants was that the document had not specified that the amount was payable "to the order" of the plaintiff, and that playability "to the order" was one of the essential elements of a promissory note, under S.4 of the Negotiabl