Honble JAIN, J. – This is plaintiffs revision petition u/s. 115 CPC against the order dated 12.12.1995 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jodhpur in civil original case No. 324/95 by which issue No. 5 regarding the nature of the document dated 1.3.1989 was decided. (2). The plaintiff-petitioner, a non-banking company, registered under Indian Companies Act, 1958 filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of the document dated 1.3.1989. The averments of the plaintiff company were that Shri Arjun Singh Solanki took a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff company. The loan was sanctioned through a cheque and the plaintiff obtained receipt of Shri Arjun Singh Solanki on the document after affixing a revenue stamp of 20 paise. The defendants who are the legal representatives of deceased Arjun Singh Solanki resisted the suit and issues were framed. Issue No. 5 was framed regarding admissibility of the above document. The defendants alleged that the above document amounts to ``Bond as defined in Sec. 2(5) of the Stamp Act and since it was not written on stamps of proper value, the same is not admissible in evidence. It was argued before the learned trial court on behalf of the plaintiff that the above document is a mere acknowledgement on receipt and since revenue stamp of 20 paise has been affixed on the document, the objection regarding admissibility in evidence was baseless. However, the learned trial Court was of opinion that the above document is ``Bond. He, therefore, ordered the plaintiff to file stamp duty and penalty as required on bond within a period of one month for admitting the above document in evidence. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and non- petitioner. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the definition of ``Bond given in Sec. 2 (5) of the Stamp Act and submitted that the above document does not come within the ambit of any of the clauses of the above definition. A mere perusal of the document show that it is an aknowledgement or a receipt and since it bears the requisite value of revenue stamp, it is admissible in evidence. It appears that the learned trial Court did not even refer to the definition of ``Bond and by cryptic observation held that the above document is a ``Bond. A mere perusal of the document show that it is an aknowledgement or a receipt and since it bears the requisite value of revenue stamp, it is admissible in evidence. It appears that the learned trial Court did not even refer to the definition of ``Bond and by cryptic observation held that the above document is a ``Bond. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kundanmal vs. Navalkishore (1), Taxmo Col. Ltd. & Anr. vs. V. Ghanshyam Das & Ors. (2) and Mangilal vs. LRs of Lalchand (3). (5). Learned counsel for the non-petitioner tried to support the order of the learned trial Court and submitted that there is astipulation to pay the above amount of loan with interest @ 2% p.m. or a receipt. (6). I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the case law cited before me. (7). Section 2 (5) of the Stamp Act defines ``Bond as follows :– ``Bond includes :– (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be condition void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another. (8). Definition of ``Bond is Sec. 2 envisages three clauses of bond and if a ``Bond comes within any of the Cls. (a), (b) or (c), it will be a ``Bond even though the requirement of other two clauses is not satisfied. In deciding whether the instrument is or is not ``Bond, the instrument must be considered as a whole and it is not permissible to devide it into several parts and look at it and then to assign each one of such parts to some other Articles in Schedule 1 of the Act. Precisely, the trial Court adopted this approach and divided the instrument in two parts. The document considered as a whole shows that the plaintiff company made advance of loan of Rs. Precisely, the trial Court adopted this approach and divided the instrument in two parts. The document considered as a whole shows that the plaintiff company made advance of loan of Rs. 5,000/- and also stated that it would be with interest @ 2% p.m. At the end of recitals of the document, Arjun Singh Solanki put his signature after affixing a revenue stamp of 20 paise which was required at the relevant time. It is very im- portant to note that the document does not bear any attestation. Attestation by a witness is an essential part of ``Bond u/Cls. (b) & (c). In the instant case, Arjun Singh Solanki put his signature in token of having acknowledged the advancement of loan. He also agreed to pay interest @ 2% p.m. Acknowledgement containing a stipulation to pay interest must be treated as an ``Agreement for the purpose of this Act. Hence, the above document is an ``Agreement and more duty and penalty must be paid as such. (9). I may refer to the cases cited by the plaintiff in Texmo Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. V. Ghanshyamdas (supra), the facts were that the agreement in question dated 13.4.1992 was executed as a result of statement of accounts. A sum of Rs. 3,13, 070.55p. was found due from V. Ghanshyamdas to the Co. through the agents. By the above agreement, the debtors agreed to pay the said amount to agents of the plaintiff company together with ``interest @ 16% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of agreement. It was held that the above document was not a conveyance but was an agreement. (10). In Kundanmal vs. Nand Kishore (supra) the document in question was in the form of a letter acknowledging receipt of certain sum and affixed with 20 paise revenue stamp. It was held that it was only a receipt and could not be termed as promisory note. (11). Similar were the facs in Mangilal vs. LRs of Lalchand. The document in question was in the form of an aknowledgement of the amount found due from the debtor to the creditor. There was also a clause for paying interest. It was held that the document was either an agreement or acknowledgement but not a promissory note. (12). (11). Similar were the facs in Mangilal vs. LRs of Lalchand. The document in question was in the form of an aknowledgement of the amount found due from the debtor to the creditor. There was also a clause for paying interest. It was held that the document was either an agreement or acknowledgement but not a promissory note. (12). For the above reasons aforesaid, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned trial Court and hold that the document in question is an agreement and stamp duty and penalty must be paid as such.