R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. This revision preferred by the defendants challenges admissibility of the instrument dated 12-2-1988, forming basis of the suit, admitted by the trial Court in evidence as promissory note, treating it to be properly stamped.

2. The instrument reads as under:

^^ge xks;y bUMLVht] eqjSuk ok;nk djrs gSa fd ekax ij HkkbZ vkse izdk'k fey] eqjSuk dks vFkok ftls og fnykosa] :i;k vadu ipiu gtkj flQZ muls izkIr /ku ds cnys nsaxs] bl ij C;kt nj 1-50 izfr'kr ekfld ls izR;sd 180 fnu ckn ns; gksxkA

eqjSuk Qkxqu cnh 9] laor 2044]

psd ua- -------------------

FOR GOYAL INDUSTRIES

fnukad 12&2&1988

Sd/-

Partner.

:i;s 55000@&

GOYAL INDUSTRIES

OLD MILL AREA, DATTPURA

MORENA, M.P.

[on adhesive stamp of 50 paise]"

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the document is not a promissory note, and if a promissory note, then being payable otherwise than on demand, is insufficiently stamped. It is further submitted that in the statement of plaintiff Om Prakash Mittal it was admitted that the amount of Rs. 55,000/- was advanced for a period of six months which also suggested that it was a promissory note, payable otherwise than on demand and more than three months after dat