VIJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. SIMPLEX HOSIERY FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijay Kumar Jain has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, dated 19th March, 1976, by which the document produced by the plaintiff was impounded and he was required to pay stamp plus ten times penalty. The disputed document is in the following terms :-

(2.) The contention of Mr. Achhra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the aforesaid document is not a 'Bond' and that the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding the same to be a 'Bond'. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Jhanji, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the view taken by the trial Court was justified and that the disputed document was nothing but a 'Bond'. Both the counsel in support of their contentions relied on certain judicial decisions.

(3.) After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The definition of 'Bond' as given in Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is in the following terms :-