- (1.)THIS is a revision application directed against the order of the learned Civil judge, Jodhpur, dated 16-8-1967, in Civil Original Suit No. 2/1966, by which he decided preliminary issues Nos. 4 and 5 against the defendant-petitioner and held that the promissory note and receipt dated 22-12-65 and the agreement to let dated 20th December, 1965 were sufficiently stamped.
(2.)THE non-petitioner-plaintiff Moolchand filed the suit for arrears of rent and for award of future rent also against the defendant-petitioner Sudesh Kumar in respect of a shop situate on the High Court Road, Jodhpur. The plaintiff's case is that he rented out the half portion of the shop in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 150 to the defendant-petitioner on 20th December, 1965, and got a rent note executed by the defendant on the same day. It is further alleged that later on the defendant took the whole shop on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 300 and agreed to deposit one year's rent in advance and instead of making a cash deposit, the defendant executed a promissory note in his favour for Rs. 3600 (being the rent for one year), on 22-12-65, and also a receipt in respect of this amount of the same date. Since the defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff, this suit was instituted in the court of learned Civil Judge on 4-11-66. The defendant in his written statement pleaded inter alia that he had actually taken the shop on rent from 24-12-65 when the possession of the shop was delivered to him. He also raised an objection with respect to the admissibility of the promissory note and receipt and also the rent note dated 20th December, 1965, on the ground that they were insufficiently stamped. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were framed in respect of this objection and were decided as preliminary issues by the lower court.
(3.)IT is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the promissory note as well as the receipt dated 22nd December, 1965, fall within the ambit of security bond as they were passed on to the plaintiff by the defendant as a security for complying with the condition of the payment of rent of the shop in question regularly. He has, therefore, contended that these two documents should have been stamped as required by Article 57 of the Stamp Act as security bonds. I am however, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that neither the promissory note nor the receipt can be considered as a security bond. Article 57 of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation)Act, 1952 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as under :--
"57. Security Bond or Mortgage-deed, executed by way of security for the due execution of an office, or to account for money or other property received by virtue thereof or executed by a surety to secure the due performance of a contract or the due discharge of a liability. "

;