This petition is directed against an order (Annexure P-1), dated 4-9-2009 by the Additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 1-B/2009, by which the Trial Court found that the document in question (Annexure P-2) is not a promissory note, but is a bond and the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty and 10 times penalty.

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that in fact the document in question is a promissory note. He has placed reliance to Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1881") in support of his contention and submitted that the document in question falls within the four corners of Section 4 of the Act of 1881, but the Trial Court erred in arriving at a finding that the document is a bond. He has drawn attention of the Court to Section 2 (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to show that the document in question does not fall within the definition of bond as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Indian Stamp Act. Lastly, it was submitted that even if the document is found to be a bond, then the Trial Court ought to have sent it to the Collector concerned for dealing with the docume