JUDGMENT The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that document Ex. P-5 is attested by Sharda Prasad (PW 5) and is for that reason, bond. It is common ground that the document is not stamped as a bond and would for that reason become inadmissible. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the document is real and held to be a promissory note, it would be a promissory note- cum-bond and would be required to be stamped as a bond. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in San/singh v. Madandas ( 1976 JLJ 235 ). As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the document is a promissory note and has been properly admitted in evidence in accordance with law. Bond, as defined u/s 2 (5) of the Stamp Act, means an under taking Lo pay a sum of money (not necessarily certain) to another person named in the instrument signed by the person giving the undertaking and attested by a witness. The full Bench of this Court in San/singh's case (supra) has clarified that a bond has two peculiar features, namely (1) it has to be attested by a witness; and (2) it must not be payable to onder or bearer. An against this, a promissory note, as defined u/s 2 (22) of the Stamp Act r/w section 4 of negotiable Instruments Act, is an instrument containing an unconditional under taking to pay a certain sum of money to the bearer or order of a certain person and is signed by the maker. These essentials are clarified in San/singh "s case. The said decision makes it clear that unless the two essential features of a bond mentioned above are present, the document would not be a bond. This decision cannot be quoted as the authority fur the proposition that any instrument attested by a witness should be a bond or a promissory note bearing attestation of a witness would cease to be a promissory note and would be treated as a bond. The essentially distinguishing feature, in the opinion of this Court, is playability. In the case of bond, the amount must not be payable to order or bearer whereas in the case of a promissory note, it must contain undertaking to pay the mentioned amount to order or bearer. The essentially distinguishing feature, in the opinion of this Court, is playability. In the case of bond, the amount must not be payable to order or bearer whereas in the case of a promissory note, it must contain undertaking to pay the mentioned amount to order or bearer. Under the circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant must be held to be illative too broadly stated and for that reason, unacceptable. In the opinion of this Court, the real nature of the document will have to be decided on the basis of the document itself. Keeping the aforesaid principle of law in mind, it may be examined if document Ex. P-5 is bond. The document is specifically titled as a pro-note. It purports to have been written by the appellant, containing an under taking to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent or his order on demand. This writing, without doubt, indicates that the document is a pro-note. Inspite of it, it has the signature of the witness Sharda Prasad Tiwari (PW 5). A pro-note is not required to be attested by any witness. But for that reason, alone. the document would not cease to be what it actually is. This document cannot be treated to be a bond of cause it promises to pay a definite sum and undertakes to pay the said definite sum to the respondent or his order. Under the circumstances, the trial Court made no mistake in holding that the document was a pro-note and was properly stamped. Fur that reason, the document must be held to have been rightly admitted in evidence. N76 JLJ 235 (FB) explained. Appeal dismissed.