RAJKISHORE PANDEY Vs. GYAN CHANDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order (Annexure P-l), dated 4-9-2009 by the Additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. l-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 iMPLJgned 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 document as per Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Bhismat Pandey Vs. Phoola and others, 2009 4 MPLJ 486.

(3.) Shri Abhishek Arjaria, learned Counsel for respondent supported the order passed by the Trial Court. He submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in Santsingh Ladharam Vs. Madandas Gyandas Panika and another, 1976 MPLJ 238, has considered this aspect in which considering the definition of the promissory note and bond found certain distinguishing features between the both. He has drawn attention of this Court to Paras 4 to 7 of the Full Bench judgment and submitted that in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the document has been rightly treated as a bond by the Trial Court. He has also placed reliance to a judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Dr. Praveen Nahar Vs. Krishan Gopal Sanghi and another,2006 1 MPLJ 422, in support of his contention.