Judgment :- 1. Respondent though served through Court on 30.7.1995 has not appeared either in person or through counsel. He was called a absent. Heard Mr. K. Chandramouli, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 2. The above revision is directed against the Interlocutory Application No. 32 of 1996 in O.S. No. 174 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinance Judge, Tirunelveli. The short facts are as follows:— One Subbarayalu was a subscriber to the chit conducted by the petitioner chit fund. He bid at the auction and as required under the Acts and Rules, he furnished sureties and offered immovables property as securities. The said Subbarayalu along with three others as sureties executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner promising to repay the future instalments amounting to Rs. 40,000/- together with interest thereon. As the subscriber committed defaults, the petitioner company was constrained to institute O.S. No. 174/91 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli for recovery of the 34 instalments amounting to Rs. 34,000/- together with interest of Rs. 5510- After giving credit to the sum of Rs. 2,000/- received, the suit was laid for the balance of Rs. 37,610/- against the subscriber and the three sureties. The respondent A. Yovan is one of the sureties. He was in pleaded as third defendant in the suit. The third defendant alone took objection that the suit pronot is note properly stamped as it is payable on demand and hence, it cannot be received in evidence. 3. The lower court accepting the contention raised by the respondent allowed the application No. 32/96 and held that the promissory note dated 30.10.89 cannot be received in evidence. Aggrieved by the said order of the court below, the petitioner has filed the above revision in this Court. 4. I have gone through the contents of the promissory note and also the pleadings put forth by the parties. In may opinion the suit promissory note is one payable on demand and therefore can be received in evidence. It is not one payable otherwise than on demand. Therefore, the order passed by the lower court holding that it is not properly stamped and cannot be received in evidence is not sustainable. 5. In may opinion the suit promissory note is one payable on demand and therefore can be received in evidence. It is not one payable otherwise than on demand. Therefore, the order passed by the lower court holding that it is not properly stamped and cannot be received in evidence is not sustainable. 5. The petitioner herein opposing the said application has filed a counter affidavit in the lower court specifically taking the plea a bare that the document No. 1, dated 30.10.89, executed by the third respondent is not a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand, and even on a bare reading of the said promissory note, it will be very clearly evident that the promissory note is only payable on demand. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, it will not come under the definition of the Section 49(2) of Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, the promissory note, in my opinion is admissible in evidence. The document is only a promissory note payable on demand which can be marked and admitted in law. I therefore hold that the lower Court has erred in holding that if the subscriber failed to pay the subscription in time without default, the promissory note cannot be enforced. In my view, this is not a ground that can be taken for consideration in determining whether the promissory note falls under Art. 49(a) or 49(b) of the Act. The lower Court has also failed to notice the fact that under the Pondicherry Chit Funds Act, the Foreman is entitled to take sureties for the due performance of the obligations of the priced subscriber and that the promissory note also has to be taken for due payment of the future instalments. 6. A careful reading of the promissory note would go to show that the promissory note contains the necessary recitals as required by the Pondicherry Chits Funds Act and that it has clearly stated that it is payable on demand and is therefore receivable in evidence. 7. The reasons assigned by the lower Court for holding that the promissory note has not been duly stamped are erroneous and unsound. I therefore allow the revision and set aside the order of the lower Court dated 15.2.1996 in I.A. No. 32/96 in O.S. No. 174/91, but however without costs. The promissory note is duly stamped and therefore the same can be received in evidence. I therefore allow the revision and set aside the order of the lower Court dated 15.2.1996 in I.A. No. 32/96 in O.S. No. 174/91, but however without costs. The promissory note is duly stamped and therefore the same can be received in evidence. I direct the lower Court to receive the document in evidence and mark the same on the side of the plaintiff. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.