RAGHUNATH BALAKRISHNA DESHPANDE Vs. BIHARILAL KRISHNAPRASAD DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's revision petition against the order passed by the Munsiff of Belgaum m ROS. No.442'1968 wherein he recorded his findings on the preliminary issues to the effect that the suit document is a note and not a money bond and that it is admissible in evidence as the said document is duly stamped as a promissory note.

(2.) Sri W.K Joshi. the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsiff committed an arror in holding that the suit document is a promissory note and not a money bond. It is not disputed that if the document is a money bond the same is not duly stamped. It is also not disprted that if the suit document is construed as a promissory note, it is duly stamped and admissible in evidence. The only question for consideration, therefore, is as to whether the suit document is a promissory note as contended by the plaintiff or a money bond as contended by the defendant.

(3.) The expression promissory note' has been defined in S.2(22) of the Indian Stamp Act as follows: