Ranjit Singh vs Darshan Singh

R.N. Mittal, J.—This Revision Petition has been filed by the Plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Samrala, dated February 19, 1985 holding that the document dated December 31, 1983 is not an agreement, but a bond. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that if the document is read as a whole, it would show that no liability is created by this document and, therefore, it is not a bond. According to him, it was an agreement by which certain previous accounts were settled by them. In support of his contention, he places reliance on The Dadri Roadways Private Ltd. v. M/s Chinaria Transport Company (Regd) 1971 R.L.R. 531, and Vijay Kumar Jain v. M/s Simplex Hosiery Factory 1978 R.L.R. 133.

I have duly considered the argument, but do not find any substance therein. In the document it is said that the Defendant-Respondent shall pay an amount of Rs. 85,000/- in three instalments of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively on specified dates. Thereafter, certain other liabilities of the parties are mentioned therein. There is no reference of any document in which the said liabilities were created.

It is evident from the document that the liability to pay the amount of Rs. 85,000/- was created for the first time by this document. In the circumstances, it falls within the definition of word "bond" as given in Section 2(5) of The Indian Stamp Act. In Dadri Roadway's case (supra), the suit was filed on the basis of a document which was based on an earlier agreement in writing In Vijay Kumar Jain's case (supra), the document was executed on the basis of an arbitration award. However in the present case, there is no such former document, as mentioned above, between the parties. In the circumstances, the ratio in the abovesaid two cases is not applicable to the facts of the present case

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same, with no order as to costs.