K. K. LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 16-4-2008 by the additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2007, by which the Court found that document in question was a promissory note, not an agreement for payment of remaining consideration of sale and was on a proper stamp duty. Holding it, the Trial Court found that the document can be received in evidence.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that in fact the document in question was a 'bond' and not a 'promissory note'. From the language of document it is apparent that a definite amount of money was promised to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent with a condition that only after payment of the amount the defendant shall be entitled for mutation in the revenue record. If the defendant effects mutation without such payment then the plaintiff would be entitled to object the mutation and for declaration of sale deed as void. The document was signed by both the parties and also attested by two witnesses, so it falls within the purview of "bond" as defined under Section 2 (5) of the Indian stamp Act, 1899. He has also placed reliance to a Full Bench judgment of this court in S