DES RAJ Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 2 -12 -1975 of the Sub Judge, Udhampur, upholding the objection of the defendant that the document in question is a promissory note and not a bond.

(2.) BRIEFLY put the facts of the case are that a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2441.50 is pending in the court of Sub Judge, Udhampur. The plaintiff has claimed the -amount on the basis of a document dated 8 -1 -1960. A preliminary objection was raised by the defendant that the document was not admissible as it was a promissory note and required to be stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act. The plaintiff met this objection by enunciating the view that the instrument was not a promissory note but a bond as it was attested by a witness namely, Thakur Dass, who was the scribe of the -document.

(3.) BEFORE me it has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the document in question cannot be styled as a promissory note inasmuch as it does not satisfy the requirements of the promissory note. It is submitted that for the purpose of holding the document as promissory note, it must be established that there is an element of negotiability in the document; in other words the document can be negotiated. The mere fact that the document contains the words that the amount would be payable on demand would not make it a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this connection reliance is placed on the observations made in A. I. R. 1962 Patna, 325.