Bapna, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money.
(2.) THE respondent instituted the suit on 12th June, 1953 in the court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh on the allegation that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 500/- to the defendant on 13th January, 1953 and a receipt was obtained from the defendant, but as the defendant failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs. 500/- principal and Rs. 85/- on account of interest. One of the pleas taken by the defendant was that the document, which the plaintiff called a receipt, was a pronote, and inadmissible in evidence. He also denied having obtained the loan or the plaintiff being entitled to any relief. THE learned Civil Judge, after a careful consideration of the language of the document, was of opinion that it was a receipt, and bore a revenue stamp of annas 2, and was admissible in evidence. THE defendant has come in revision. The document translated in English is as follows: - "date of maturity Asarh Budi 13, Smt. 2009. Greetings of Dhanraj Ratanlal of Pratapgarh to Firojshah Rustamji Abkari-wala. We have borrowed Rs. 500/ - for six months from you on Mah Bubi 13, Smt 2009, and have received the same. Date Mah. Budi 13, Smt. 2009. Sd/-Manaklal. " Learned counsel for defendant urges that it contains all the ingredients required of a promissory note. The contention has no force. It does not contain any express undertaking to pay, and this is the distinguishing feature between a promissory note and a receipt. If an implied promise is held to be sufficient, every receipt will become a a promissory note, for every receipt of a loan implies a promise to pay. Where a docu-ment purports to be a receipt, but some other terms are also incorporated in the document, showing the terms on which the loan was received, the nature of the document is not changed. Reference may be made to Mohammed Akbar Khan vs. Attar Singh (I ). The present is a case where the document was obviously a receipt, although it was also mentioned that the money would be payable after six months, but not earlier. The endorsement at the top only shows that is will not be demanded earlier. I he learned Civil Judge has come to a right conclusion. There is no force in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. .;