A bond is not a document required by law to be attested as contemplated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, it is unnecessary to prove its execution by producing an attesting witness.

1. This is a petition in revision by the plaintiff against the decree of the small cause Court Lashkar. The plaintiff alleges that on 9-3-48 the defendant pledged 300 Tolas of imitation silver and borrowed Rs.300/- on condition of repaying Rs.303/- after a fortnight. As the defendant failed to repay the money the suit is filed to recover the amount. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Consequently he has filed this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the bond in dispute not being a document required by law to be attested it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove its execution by producing the attesting witness, and as the execution of the document has been proved by other evidence on record the trial Court has erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The bond in dispute is no doubt attested by a witness. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that as the attesting witness was dead he could not be produced. There is, however, no evidence on record to show that it was proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the attesting witness Govind Sunar was dead. We have, therefore, to consider whether it is necessary to produce the attesting witness in order to prove the execution of the bond.

Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act reads as follows

"'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 bond in dispute no doubt appears to fall within the definition of 'Bond' given in Cl.(b). Therefore, it would appear that it is necessary that a bond must be attested. For one thing, the definition of the 'bond' does not appear to be exhaustive as is clear from the word 'includes'. Besides although for the purpose of Stamp Act it may be necessary for a bond to be attested, it does not follow that a bond is required by law to be attested for all purposes. In - 'Ram Chandra v. Jhibal', AIR 1940 Nag 240 (A), Gruer, J. observed as follows:

"The definition, it is to be noted, is not exhaustive, nor is it proper to infer from this definition of ' bond in the Stamp Act which deals with stamp matters only, that it means that such a document is required by law to be attested. In the case of mortgages and gifts it is clearly so stated in the Transfer of Property Act and in the case of wills in the Succession Act, but a bond as such is not an instrument required by law to be attested. Therefore, it is S.72, Evidence Act, which applies and not S.68."

Similar observations were made in - 'Ramdat Ram v. Lalta Prasad', AIR 1948 Oudh 258 (B) by Kaul, J. The learned Judge observed :

"Reference was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the definition of that term as contained in the Stamp Act and the Limitation Act. As pointed out by the learned Judge in the Court below, none of these definitions are exhaustive. The definitions of these Acts are meant only for the purposes of those Acts and cannot be taken to apply generally to the term 'bond'."

I am, therefore, of the opinion that a bond is not a document required by law to be attested as contemplated by S.68, Evidence Act, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to prove its execution by producing an attesting witness.

3. In this case the plaintiff has produced Gappa and Nathulal in support of his claim and has also examined himself. Gappa and Nathulal both clearly depose that the defendant pledged certain imitation ornaments and borrowed Rs.300/- and put his thumb impression on the bond. The learned Judge thought there was a discrepancy in their statements. Gappa has stated that the bond was written in the plai