This revision has been preferred by the plaintiff from the order of the learned District Munsif of Sirkali, holding that a note relied upon by the plaintiff as a receipt could not be admitted in evidence even on payment of stamp duty and penalty thereon, as it was an acknowledgment falling under Article 1, Schedule I, of the Indian Stamp Act. The plaintiff had instituted this suit for recovery of a sum of money, which he had advanced to the defendant on the promise of the defendant to execute a mortgage for the amount. It is stated that contemporaneously with the above, the defendant had given this receipt. It is this receipt, which the learned District Munsif held as not admissible in evidence. In the view of the learned District Munsif, it not merely acknowledges the receipt of money, but also acknowledges the money as a debt due to the plaintiff. The receipt had been filed along with the plaint and a penalty has been collected as on an instrument falling under section 2(23) of the Stamp Act. It just recites that on the date in question the signatory had received cash Rs. 1,000. Nothing more is stated therein. It does not acknowledge any debt of the executant; just a fact