ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Mr.J yotheshwar representing Sri Laxma Reddy, the Counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, the Counsel representing respondent.
2. Sri Jyotheshwar, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner - defendant would submit that the suit is based on the promissory note but however on a careful reading of the recitals of the promissory note in question, the same may have to be treated as a bond and not as a promissory note and hence, the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal had totally erred in permitting the respondent - plaintiff to mark the said document in question as Ex.A.1.
3. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent - plaintiff would maintain that the C.R.P. was filed only with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. The learned Counsel also would contend that even otherwise though the payment by way of cheque was written on the promissory note it is not the case of the revision petitioner - defendant that either the cheque was dishonoured or the consideration in pursuance thereof was not received by him, but, on the contrary the defence is one of total denial. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would contend that in the light of the definitions of the promissory note both under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the document in question would fall within the meaning of promissory note only. While concluding, the Counsel would contend that, at any rate, this question also may be decided while disposing of the suit itself.
4. The respondent herein - the plaintiff in O.S. No. 467/2002 on the file of III-Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Warangal, filed the suit for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note dated 2-6-2002. The said suit was resisted by the revision petitioner - defendant by filing a written statement wherein the very transaction itself had been denied. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion at this stage relating to the merits and demerits of the respective contentions on the aspect of the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of respondent - plaintiff. The main question in controversy between the parties is in relation to the recital in the promissory note in question referred to supra referring to cheque bearing No. 097628 dt.31- 12-2002 of S.B.H., Warangal main branch. On a careful reading of the recitals of the document in question, this Court is of the opinion that except for this additional recital relating to the cheque specified supra, the conditions of a promissory note are satisfied. Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 deals with Definitions. Section 2(22) of the said Act defines a 'Promissory note' as hereunder:
In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, 'promissory note' means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881);
It also includes a note promising the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen.
Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 defining 'Promissory Note' specifies 'a 'promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being a bank- note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instruments.' Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 defines 'Bond' as hereunder:
In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, 'Bond' includes -
a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;
b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and
c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another.
The learned III-Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal had referred to Thenappa Chettiar v. Andiyappa Chettiar : AIR1971Mad290 andR. Kannuswamy v. V.V.K. Samy & Co. Singapore and Ors. : AIR1988Mad336 and after recording reasons arrived at a conclusion that the document in question is a promissory note and accordingly permitted respondent - plaintiff to mark the same as Ex.A.1. The essentials to be satisfied to treat a document as a promissory note had been repeatedly laid down in several of the decisions in Bhadurunnisa v. Vasudev AIR 1967 A.P., 183; Shah v. Gandhi : AIR1973Bom27 ; Rangaswamy v. Govindaswamy : AIR1961Mad434 ; Kasiviswanatham v. Radhakrishna Rao 1973 (1) An.W.R. 26; Subba Rao v. Chinna Veeraiah 1997 (1) A.L.D., 435. In the light of the facts referred to supra and also taking into consideration the recitals made in the document in question, in the light of the definition of promissory note both in the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order cannot be found fault and in view of the same, the C.R.P. shall stand dismissed.
No costs.