ORDER : 1. The plaintiff Damodar son of Ganpat sued the defendant Munnalal Ramchandra for recovery of Rs. 298 on the basis of a khata entry, annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had dealings with him in gold and the balance on Kartik Bidi 1 Samvat year 2002 due from the defendant, was gold, weighing 2 Tolas, 5 Masas and 1 Batti. The plaintiff acknowledged the dues on 29-5-46. and signed the khata entry, containing the acknowledgment. It was objected that under Art. 1, Stamp Act, as the entry was an acknowledgment, pure and simple, it was inadmissible in evidence and could not be the foundation of the suit. The trial Court held that the entry in the khata contains promise to pay and as such it was an agreement which was admissible in evidence on payment of penalty and decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs.237-6-6 with costs. The defendant has come up in revision. 2. Whether a balance, signed by a debtor in the books of his creditor, amounts to an acknowledgment, is a question depending upon the form of entry and the intention of the entry. Here the khata entry runs as follows : 3. It appears to me that the expression is a promise to pay the balance and as such it is not an acknowledgment pure and simple and is not hit by. Art. 1, Stamp Act, In Dulichand v. Panthi, A.I.R. (25) 1938 Lah. 511 : (40 Cr. L. J. 9), it was held that where a balance is struck in an account book of a creditor and is followed by a .statement which is signed by the debtor the document is an agreement and not a mere acknowledgment as it contains a promise to pay. Having regard to the form of the khata entry, in my opinion, it is an unconditional acknowledgement, implying a promise to pay and such acknowledgement if unstamped is admissible in evidence on payment of requisite penalty, vide Privy Council ruling Maniram v. Rupchand 33 Cal. 1047 : (33 I. a. 165 P. C). In Pahlad v. Shib Lal, 132 I. C. 881 : (a.i.r, (18) 1931 Lah. 1047 : (33 I. a. 165 P. C). In Pahlad v. Shib Lal, 132 I. C. 881 : (a.i.r, (18) 1931 Lah. 631) the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has held that where an entry purports to be an unconditional acknowledgment by the executant and implies a promise to pay the sum mentioned, it should be stamped as an agreement and is admissible in evidence on payment of duty as an agreement. 4. I, therefore, hold that the lower Court is correct in holding that the entry in question is not an acknowledgment, pure and simple, but contains a promise to pay debt and this has been excluded by the proviso from the applicability of Art. 1. I, therefore, reject the revision application with costs.