GOPAKUMAR Vs. P EASWAR PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. No. 573 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the defendant, respondent herein, on the basis of an agreement entered into between the parties. During the pendency of the suit, a question was raised before the Court below by the defendant as to whether the document dated 30-8-1997 was a bond or only an agreement by which the time for payment of the amount as per the earlier agreement was extended. By the impugned order, the court below found that the document dated 30-8-1997 was a bond as it creates an obligation on the part of the signatory to pay off the amount. Aggrieved by the above finding, this Civil Revision is filed.

(3.) Heard counsel on either side. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on the decisions of this Court reported in State Bank of Travancore v. Thayikutty Amma 1988 (2) KLT 111 and Mathai Mathew v. Thampi 1989 (1) KLT 138 submits that to determine whether a document is a bond, it should be proved that the said document by itself creates an obligation to pay the amount. According to the learned Counsel, the document dated 30-8-1997 only reiterates the contents of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay off the amount covered by the earlier agreement and that it would not create any new or further obligation.