LAW FOR ALL

the document in question is either a partnership deed or a surety bond and that in either case, it is not admissible in evidence for the reason that if it is a partnership deed, the same is not signed by the petitioner and if it is a security bond, it is not sufficiently stamped. "Section 2(5) "Bond": "Bond" includes - (a) .... (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) ...." As the petitioner allegedly obliged to pay money to the respondent, the instrument clearly falls under the definition of bond. The lower Court has, therefore, committed a serious jurisdictional error in totally misconstruing the instrument as an agreement not requiring additional stamp duty. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside and the lower Court is directed to treat the document in question as bond and take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if it is found that the same is not sufficiently stamped. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2395 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.