K VEERA NAGI REDDY Vs. SHAIK IDAYATHULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent filed O. S. No. 132 of 2007 in the Court of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District against the petitioner and the second respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,500/- with interest. During the course of trial, he intended to mark a document which is said to have been executed in a Police Station and constituted the basis for the suit. The petitioner objected to the marking of the document by taking the plea that the document does not answer the description of a 'promissory note' or 'bond'. The trial Court, through its order, dated 11. 09. 2008, took the view that the document is not a promissory note, but it is a bond. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition.

(2.) SRI L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the first respondent and the so-called document is neither dated nor attested by any witness. He contends that the document does not answer the description of bond, as defined under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the act'), inasmuch as the payment under it is not contingent. He further submits that the document does not contain even the date.

(3.) SRI B. Viswanatha Reddy, the learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner not only admitted the document, but had paid an instalment under that and he cannot take an objection for the admissibility of the document.