Honble JAIN, J. — This is plaintiffs revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 1.4.1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali whereby while deciding issue No.3 as preliminary issue, it was held that suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. (2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 6.8.76 for recovery of Rs. 83,500/- on the basis of a letter dated 28.10.1973. The defendants No.l and 2 resisted the suit and filed their separate written statements on 6.10.79 and 25.2.1977 respectively stating that accounts have been settled on 27.10.93 and nothing subsists as there is no dealing between the parties. The defendants also raised a preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable as the document is not properly stamped. The learned trial court framed as many as five issues on 3.1.1981 including the issue No.3, which runs as under: — "Whether the suit document not being properly stamped is inadmissible in evidence?" (3). The learned trial court after considering the point raised by the defendant, that suit document is a pronote having all the necessary ingredients for constitution of document as a pronote, held that the suit document is a pronote and inadmissible in evidence for want of sufficient stamp and decided the issue No.3 against the plaintiff vide order dt. 1.4.1983. Hence, this revision. (4). This revision is pending since 4.6.1983. It has been admitted by this court on 9.8.1983 and proceedings were stayed. It has come up before me today for hearing. (5). As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. (6). Mr. Arvind Samdariya, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Harakchands case (1). He has supported the decision of the learned trial court and submitted that it has rightly held that the suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. (7). Mr. He has supported the decision of the learned trial court and submitted that it has rightly held that the suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. (7). Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit document is a letter by which certain amount was to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant which carries interest also and at the most that can be construed as an undertaking given by the defendant to pay the certain amount or as a letter for an agreement. He has also contended that since the impugned order affects the final decision of the suit, the same can be examined in revisional jurisdiction. He has relied on Shekh Mohd. Vs. Mohd. Passa (2), Kundanmal Vs. Nand Kishore (3), Nanga Vs.Dhannalal (4), Shiv Raj Vs. Ram Swaroop. (5) and Potula Subba Rao Vs. G.Ganga Rao (6) (8). First of all I proceed to examine the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners regarding the maintainability of the revision. (9). In the Full Bench decision rendered in Harak Chands case (supra), this court has held that a particular evidence is admissible in evidence or not is a question which is within the discretion of the trial court which had the jurisdiction to decide it and no revision lies against such a decision. (10). The principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision that such erroneous decision does not amount to be an error in the manner of exercise of jurisdiction has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but he has contended that if an interlocutory decision of the trial court ultimately decides the case finally, then certainly this court can interfere in the revisional jurisdiction and this point has not been considered by the Full Bench in the aforesaid decision therefore, revision is no bar. (11). In Shekh Mohd. Vs. Mohd. (11). In Shekh Mohd. Vs. Mohd. Passa (supra) their lordships while dealing with the point of revisional power of the High Court under section 26(e) of Hyderabad House(Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 in a case where under Section 26(c) the High Court interferred with the decision of controller as well as appellate court by reappreciating the evidence on record and set aside the concurrent finding arrived at by the courts below, have interpreted the term "acted illegally" and "or with material irregularity" used in the said Act has set a side the decision of the High Court. The said words so used and interpreted by their lordships are almost identical to the words used in Section 115 C.P.C. (12). In Subba Rao Vs. G.Ganga (supra) the facts of the case are very much similar to the facts of the present case. In that case the question was relating to whether an ultimate finding given by the court in passing an order erroneously in holding that certain evidence is inadmissible although the same was admissible. Under such circumstances, the High Court of Orissa while exercising its power under Sec. 115 C.P.C. interferred with the order passed by the court below and held that the court has erroneously refused to consider the material evidence which can influence the final decision. (13). In Kundanmal Vs. Nand Kishore(supra) this court has also expressed the same view holding that erroneous finding as to the admissibility of evidence can be challenged under Section 115 C.P.C. because such a finding decides the case finally. (14). In view of the aforesaid decisions, in my view the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non- petitioner has no force and the same is hereby rejected. (15). Now, coming to the merits of the case as to whether the document in question is a pronote or a letter of account stated? Before I deal with the same I think it proper to quote relevant provisions of law, which read as under: — "Section 4. (15). Now, coming to the merits of the case as to whether the document in question is a pronote or a letter of account stated? Before I deal with the same I think it proper to quote relevant provisions of law, which read as under: — "Section 4. Promissory Note :- A "Promissory Note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency - note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money also to, or to the order of, a certain person, or the bearer of the instrument." "Section 13- Negotiable Instrumental) "Negotiable Instrument" means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer. Explanation (i)-A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is payable to order which is expressed to be so payable or which is expressed to be payable to a particular person, and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it shall not be transferable." A careful reading of the aforesaid definitions of Promissory Note as given in the Negotiable Instrument and Indian Stamp Act, it is clear that apart from these definitions the intention of the parties can be gathered from the language used in the documents. In other words the intention of the parties is to be gathered at the time of execution of the document with reference to the substance of the documents and surrounding circumstances in which the document has been executed and this depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case with regard to particular document whether a particular document is a primarily an acknow-legement of debt or receipt or promise to pay a certain amount. (16). In the present case, the document reads as under : — ^^ HkkbZth Jh ekaxhyky th Hkwjey th jk ukgj Jh tkkaq nk fy[kh cSaxyksj lq lk ekaxhyky dSoy pUn ,.M dEiuh dks eqtjks cpkolhA mijl vkijh jde ns.kh rhdk la- 2030 jk dkrh lqn 1 rd jk :ih;k 62720½ v{kjs :ih;k cklB gtkj lkr lkS chl gehj vBs vkijk ns.kk dkMh;k lks vki mls geksjk esa ys.kk dkM nslh vkxs C;kt 1½ lsdM+k ekgokj lq Hkj nslh okihl phBh nhjkolh gekjs yk;d dke dkt gksos lks fy[kkolh ler 2030 dkrh lqn 2** (17). In Nanga Vs. In Nanga Vs. Dhannalal (supra) a Full Bench of this Court has held that a promissory note besides fulfilling the requirements as laid down in Section 4 must also be intended by the parties at the time of its execution to be a promissory note. As understood by the commercial person in order to its popular sense which means it must be intended by the parties before negotiable instrument unless it falls within the exceptions provided by the wider definitions of the Stamp Act or otherwise expressly or by implication made not transferable. (18). In Shiv Raj Vs. Ram Swaroop (supra), this court while dealing with promissory note and Khata held that ordinarily document executed in Bahi is called Khata which mainly strikes the balance of amount due and do not contain promise to pay. In that case it has been observed that all the necessary requisite requirements of pronote are present in the document. In such circumstances, the document is a pronote and when the pronote is unstamped, it is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. (19). A careful reading of the document shows that there is an account between the parties and in view of the account this amount has become due. In the present case, the relevant words used in the document" are that ^^mijl vkijh jde ns.kh rhdk la- 2030 jk dkrh lqn 1 rd :ih;k 62720½ v{kjs :ih;k cklB gtkj lkr lkS chl gehj vBs vkijk ns.kh dkMh;k lks vki mls geksjk esa ys.kk dkM nslh vkxs C;kt 1½ lsdM+k ekgokj lq Hkj nslhA** These words give the intention of the parties at the time of its execution. Such document cannot be considered to be a promissory note even though there is an amount ascertain the person to whom the money has been named and there is promise to pay, yet such document does not fall within the definition of Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The underlined portion goes to show that this is an agreement or acknowledgement of amount due found on account stated. la these circumstances, when the document is not a promissory note, then such a document can be admissible in evidence. The underlined portion goes to show that this is an agreement or acknowledgement of amount due found on account stated. la these circumstances, when the document is not a promissory note, then such a document can be admissible in evidence. Therefore, the trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in treating the document inadmissible in evidence of want of sufficient stamp and the finding regarding the nature of the document to be pronote is set aside. (20). In the result, the revision is allowed . The order dated 8.4.1983 passed by the District Judge, Pali is set aside. Cost of the revision is made easy.