Short Note : 1. The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows. The plaintiff non-applicant has instituted a suit against the applicant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3400. The plaintiff's case was that on 26th June 1972 the defendant barrowed from the plaintiff firm a sum of Rs. 2500 and executed a receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the document alleged to be a receipt by the plaintiff was in fact a Hundi and as it was not properly stamped, it was not admissible in evidence. This objection was not upheld by the trial Court by its impugned order, and hence the defendant has preferred this revision petition. Held : In Ghasilal v. Karan Singh (1975 JLJ SN 106), I have held that a document exactly similar to the one under consideration in the instant case, is a receipt and admissible in evidence as such. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Firm Ashok Kumar Bhagwandas and another v. Shyam Sunder Rawat and another (CR No. 539 of 1972 decided on 18th March 1974), the decision in Ghasilal v. Karan Singh (1975 JLJ-SN 106) required reconsideration. I have gone through the decision in Firm Ashok Kumar Bhagwandas and another v. Shyam Sunder Rawat and another (supra) and, as held by me in Ghasilal v. Karan Singh (supra), the facts in Firm Ashok Kumar Bhagwandas and another v. Shayam Sunder Rawat and another (supra) are distinguishable. I, therefore, see no reason to take a view different from that taken by me in Ghasilal v. Karan Singh (supra) 1975 JLJ SN 106 relied on. Revision dismissed.