( 1 ) THIS revision petition came up for hearing before our learned brother Newaskar, J. , who was of the opinion that an important question of law was involved and that the revision should be placed before a larger Bench to be nominated by the honourable the Chief Justice. Accordingly, this case has been placed before us for disposal.

( 2 ) THE applicants are plaintiffs. They filed a suit, out of which this revision arises, for recovery of certain amount on the basis of two documents, styled as promissory notes. The document dated 19th June 1964 (Ex P-2) is not sufficiently stamped as a promissory note. The non-applicant, therefore, objected to its admission in evidence. The trial Court held that it was a promissory note and being insufficiently stamped was inadmissible in evidence. The applicant's contention was that it was a bond, as It was attested by witnesses and that it could be validated on payment of penalty, and that the trial Court was wrong in holding the document Inadmissible. Hence this revision.

( 3 ) THE document in question is on a printed form and reads thus:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 4 ) IN support of the submission that the document in question is a b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document