Z A CHINWALA Vs. MINOO JAL PARDIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise in this revisional application directed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge presiding over 10 Court City Civil Court on July 23 1976 namely (1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the document in question was a bond within the meaning of sec. 2(c)(ii) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 and (2) whether the learned trial Judge was empowered to pass an order directing the petitioner plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp fees on the footing that the document was a bond alongwith ten times the penalty on the amount of deficit.

(2.) So far as the first point is concerned the view taken by the learned trial Judge appears to be exceptionable. Under the document in question executed on October 17 1972 which is attested by witnesses and which does not make the amount under the document payable to order or bearer a new arrangement has been arrived at in respect of the preexisting liability for a sum of Rs. 15000.00due by opponent defendant to petitioner plaintiff. By this document a time schedule has been provided for repayment of the debt by instalments as stipulated in the agreement and an obligation to pay the amount as per the time schedule has been undertaken. There is also a stipulation to the effect that in case of failure to adhere to the time schedule of payment the amount may be recovered by taking legal steps along with interest at 1250.

(3.) The expression bond has been defined for the purposes of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 in sec. 2(c) (ii) as under :