AMITAV BANERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant. Plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- on the basis of promissory note and the receipt dated 25th March, 1972 was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court held that there were material alterations in the promissory note, inasmuch as the refugee relief stamp was subsequently affixed and was not properly cancelled. The promissory note and the receipt were insufficiently stamped, and that the pronote was a forged document. It was further held that the plaintiff could not establish by reliable evidence that he had advanced rs. 5,000/- to the defendant on the 25th March, 1972. On appeal, the court below held that the instrument in question was a bond and not a promissory note and that the provisions of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had no application to the bond. The court below further held that the amount had been advanced and nothing had been paid by the defendant. It further held that the promissory note was not a forged document. The appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the suit was decreed with costs throughout.

( 2 ) THE following two substantial questions of law were framed at the time