( 1 ) PETITIONER has challenged order dated 8-9-2004 passed by the 1st Addition District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil original Suit No. 2-B/2002 by which the trial Court decided the admissibility of a document and held that it is a Bond within the meaning of S. 2 (5) of the Indian Stamp act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')and directed that on payment of appropriate stamp duty, document shall be admissible in evidence.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has challenged the order on the following grounds :- (i) That, the said document is not a bond within the meaning of S. 2 (5) of the Act and in fact it is an acknowledgement of loan accompanied by a promise to pay. (ii) That, the document is not covered under the definition of S. 2 (5) of the Act. (iii) Reliance is placed to the judgments of Single Bench in Mannalal Nanhelal v. Sitambernath Ramhirdelal. 1961 MPLJ 169 and Nandram v. Vardichand, 1975 JLJ SN 7 and submitted that the order passed by the trial Court be set aside.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for, respondents supported the order and it is submitted that the document in question is a Bond and it falls within the definition of under S. 2 (5) of the Act and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document