( 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 bond and not a promissory note, reliance has been placed on the definition of "bond" (Section 2 (5)) in the Stamp Act. Under Clause (b) of Section 2 (5), any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, is treated to be a bond. The argument is that an instrument which satisfies the other requirements of a promissory note, but, which on the face of it is not negotiable, that is to say which does not contain a recital that it is payable to order and which is attested by a witness, must necessarily be held to be a bond. It is urged that though under Section 13 (1) read with explanation I of the negotiable Instruments Act a promissory note which is not, on the face of it, payable to order but which does not contain the words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that provision cannot be relied on as in the Stamp Act the definition of a 'promissory note' as given in Section 4 (1) of the Negotiable instruments Act alone has been adopted as the definition of a promissory note. Section 4 of the Negotiable "instruments Act clearly requires that the instrument, on the face of it, must be payable to order. The contention, therefore, is that an instrument, which is not on the face of it payable to order, should be treated as a promissory note for the purposes of the Negotiable Instruments Act; but so far as the Stamp Act is concerned, it is not a promissory note and as such if the instrument is attested by a witness, it will come within the definition of a "bond". It is also submitted that Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was amended in 1919 when the Explanation was added, and that subsequent amendment of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be read in the Stamp Act which adopted the definition of a 'promissory note' as it stood when the Stamp Act was enacted. Reliance for these submissions has been placed on: Ram Narayan v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1962 Pat 325. Khetra Mohan Saha v. Jamini, ILR 54 Cal 445 = (AIR 1927 Cal 472); Dashrath Tukaram v Kashiram Raoji, AIR 1937 Nag 61; govula Ramakistiah v. Yellappa, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 653 and Mohammad Mustafa ali Khan v. Rai Raieshwari Devi. AIR 1959 All 583 (FB ).

( 5 ) OUR learned brother Newaskar, J. , it appears, proceeded on the assumption that the instrument in question was not on the face of it negotiable, i. e. it was not payable to order. He, however, felt that in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Mohd. Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh, AIR 1936 PC 171 there was no reason why this kind of a document, which otherwise satisfied the other tests of a promissory note, should not be treated as a promissory note for the purposes of the Stamp act also. he expressed his view thus:

"in dealing with the provisions contai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document