ORDER P.V. Dixit, J. The plaintiff-applicant has instituted a suit against the opponents for the recovery of Rs.3611-1-0 alleging that there were money dealings and grain transactions between the parties; that on a certain day in Samvat 2006 Rs.2187-7-0 were found due from the defendants Gajrabai and Sardar-bai, the purchaser-in-interest of the other defendants; that on that date Gajrabai and Sardarbai signed an acknowledgment in the plaintiff's account books about this amount being due from them; and that the acknowledgment was sufficiently stamped with one anna stamp. The learned trial judge has held that the document which the plaintiff has styled as an acknowledgment is in fact a bond and has directed the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty before it can be admitted in evidence. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. The document in question is in the following form: [kkrk ljnkjckbZ enZ j?kwukFkflag] xtjkckbZ] enZ ?kwyth dks laer 2006 tqus iku laer 2005&6 tek ukes 185 ferh ikS"k cnh 14 jksdMk :i;k 185 tek laer 2007 gLrs izseflag ds- 2187&7&0 ckdh c- lq- 1 :- nsuk eatwj 481&7&0 216 ferh pSr lq- 15 xsgwa tek 481&7&0 [kkrk dk :i;k- ek.kh 3 izr 72- 1700&0&0 xsgwa eqnny lok.k dk :i;k lrjklkS- 401 2187&6&0 fVdhV ij lgh ckdh 2273 fu- val ljnkjckbZ enZ j?kwukFkflag dh :i;k nssuk eatwjA fu- va- xtjk enZ Nwyth dk gkFk dh :i;k nsuk- cdye ukjk;.kflag eqU'khyky dh xokg fu- vaa- cYn 'kkfyxzke ukbZ- The question is whether this writing is an acknowledgment within the meaning of Article 1 Schedule I of the Stamp Act or a bond as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act and as such liable to duty under Article 15. Mr. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the writing in question was an acknowledgment of a pre-existing liability and did not contain any express promise to pay the debt and that, therefore, it was an acknowledgment for the purposes of Article 1 Schedule I of the Stamp Act and was sufficiently stamped. Relying on Ramchandra v. Muka Gujan AIR 1934 Nag 273, learned counsel contended that for a document to be covered by the proviso to Article 1 there must be an express promise to pay as distinguished from the implied promise to pay, which is contained in any unconditional acknowledgment. Relying on Ramchandra v. Muka Gujan AIR 1934 Nag 273, learned counsel contended that for a document to be covered by the proviso to Article 1 there must be an express promise to pay as distinguished from the implied promise to pay, which is contained in any unconditional acknowledgment. It was said that the words ^^:i;k nsuk eatwj** did not constitute an express promise to pay. I am unable to accede to the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel is no doubt right in his submission founded on AIR 1934 Nag 273 that for a document to be covered by the proviso to Article 1 Schedule 1 there must be an express promise to pay as distinguished from an implied promise to pay which is contained in any unconditional acknowledgment. But the real question is whether the words ^^:i;k nsuk eatwj** in the writing under consideration amount to an express promise to pay. The words ^^ckdh :i;k nsuk eatwj** as I understand their meaning, clearly 'constitute an express promise to pay the balance. The literal translation of the words ^^ckdh :i;k nsuk eatwj** would be 'balance amount payable accepted or admitted". In other words, they mean that [the person signing the entry admitted the balance to be repaid by him. The words thus are clearly words accepting the liability for the repayment of the balance amount due. Learned counsel suggested that the word ^^nsuk** meant 'debt' and that, therefore, the words ^^:i;k nsuk eatwj** connoted 'balance of debt accepted''. I do not agree. The word ^^nsuk** means 'repayable' and not 'debt'. The words thus are clearly words accepting the liability for the repayment of the balance amount due. Learned counsel suggested that the word ^^nsuk** meant 'debt' and that, therefore, the words ^^:i;k nsuk eatwj** connoted 'balance of debt accepted''. I do not agree. The word ^^nsuk** means 'repayable' and not 'debt'. I am fortified in the view I have taken by a decision of the Lahore High Court in Firm Tek-chand Daulatram v. Ata Mohammad AIR 1938 Lah 503 where an entry in 'bahi-khata' contained the words ^^ckdh nsus** and it was held that they amounted to an agreement to pay and the entry was liable to be stamped as a bond as it was attested by a witness In Bhansarlal v. Navalkishor an entry in the account book ran as follows: 8000 ckdh ysuk oS'kk[k lqnh 8 laer 2002 rkjh[k 20&4&45 rd :tw dynkj g- Hkejyky eqUrtqe drkZ [kkunku eulq[knkl [ksepan 8000 ysuk- n- Hkejyky egsJh ij ckdh :fi;k 8000 ckdh ysuk rk- 20&4&45 HkejykyA A Division Bench of this Court held that the words ^^ckdh ysuk** contained an express promise to pay a sum of Rs.8000/-. The present case is much stronger as the words used are ^^:i;k nsuk eatwj** Learned counsel placed reliance on Mulj'i Lala v. Lingu Makaji ILR 21 Bom 201 to support his contention. But the decision in that case turned1 upon the form of the entry in the account book. The document in that case only stated; "the old account being made up and all the accounts being considered Rs.102/- in full up to 21-10-1892. After making up of the accounts this writing is made and given". It was because of this wording of the document which did not contain any express promise to pay that it was held by the Bombay High Court that it satisfied all the requirements of an acknowledgment under Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the document in question was not an acknowledgment but a bond and in directing the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty for its reception in evidence. The result is that this petition is dismissed with costs, Petition dismissed