The essential ingredients of a promissory note and a bond as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Stamp Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by the defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karera on August 21, 1998 overruling anobjection raised by the defendant-petitioner with respect to admissibility of document dated December 14, 1984. It was submitted by the defendant-petitioner that the said document is a 'promissory note' as defined in S. 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 1. 5% per month total amount of Rs. 68,750/-, on the basis of a receipt dated 14-12-1984. The plaintiff has pleaded that he had advanced the money to the defendant on 14-12-1984. There was oral agreement of its return and for satisfaction a receipt was written by the defendant.

( 3 ) THE objection raised by the defendant-petitioner was contested by the plaintiff-respondent. It was submitted that it was simply an acknowledgement for return of the money advanced.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Shri K. K. Lahoti and Shri D. D. Bansal appearing for the petitioner have urged that it is a case where ingredients of promissory note are clearly made out in respect of document dated 14-12-1984 which runs thus :the learned counsel has also relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sant Singh v. Madanadas Panika, 1976 JLJ ( AIR 1976 MP 144) which lays down the distinction between a promissory note and a bond.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that essential ingredient of promissory note that the amount is payable on the order is missing from the document dated 14-12-1984, hence it cannot be termed to be a promissory note. He has pressed into service a Single Judge decision of this Court in Mannalal Nanhelal v. Sitambernath Ramhirdelal, 1961 MPLJ 169.

( 6 ) "promissory note" has been defined in S. 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as under :"4. 'promissory note :- A "promissory note" is an instrument in writing (note being a bank note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. "one of the essential ingredients, namely, it is payable to the order of a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument is completely missing in respect of the document in question. "bond" has been defined in S. 2 (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 which reads thus;" (5) "bond' includes - (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another. "the essential ingredients of promissory note are - (1) An unconditional undertaking to pay; (2) Thesum should be a sum of money and should be certain; (3) The payment should be to the order of a person who is certain; or to the bearer of the instrument; and (4) The maker should sign it. In the instant case the third requirement i. e. the payment should be to the order of a person, is missing. As one of the essential conditions is missing the document in question cannot be termed as "promissory note". It also cannot be said to be a 'bond' as it does not bear attestation by a witness. The essentials of a bond are :- (1) There must be an undertaking to pay (2) The sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain; (3) The payment will be to another person named in the instrument; (4) the maker should sign it; (5) The instrument should be attested by a witness; and (6) It must not be payable to order or bearer.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of Munal