ORDER Khan, J. -- 1. Would an instrument cease to be a Promissory Note in terms of section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, where it provided for payment of interest which was ascertainable?, This question has been posed by the first appellate Court for answer by a larger bench and that is how we are seized of the reference. 2. The issue arises in appeal No. 86/84 which was directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.84 passed by Additional Judge, Nee-much in Civil Suit No. 6-B/83, based on the disputed Promissory Note. The suit was dismissed on the jurisdiction plea. However, the first appellate Court, while considering the appeal, came across an objection on the nature of the instrument and refused to accept it is a Promissory Note as it envisaged payment of interest. It was held as under :- "To my mind S. 79 provides only the date from which the rate of interest would run, if the same is provided for in the Promissory Note, but that cannot override specific provisions of S. 4, which requires that there should be an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker to pay a certain sum of money only. In that view of matter, when there is a provision to pay interest, I feel that a Note cannot be said to be a Promissory Note, if it provides for any payment which is ascertainable, and not a certain sum. Secondly I feel that if there is a promise and if the amount ascertainable is not paid by the certain date, and if there is a promise to pay interest, and the amount of interest is not paid by that certain date, pay-ability of the amount becomes conditional on passing of that date. Therefore, it cannot be said to be Promissory Note." 3. All that was required to be examined in this backdrop was whether an instrument could be excluded from the tribe of a Promissory Note merely because it provided for payment of interest and whether the view taken by the first appellate Court deserved acceptance. 4. Senior Advocate Shri A.M. Mathur was called upon to assist the Court in the matter in the absence of the respondent who failed to appear. 4. Senior Advocate Shri A.M. Mathur was called upon to assist the Court in the matter in the absence of the respondent who failed to appear. He referred to relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the English Bill of Exchange Act to show that provision for payment of interest in an instrument could not decategorise it, so long as the rate of interest was provided and the amount could be determined even through the process of calculation. According to him section 4 of the Act was to be read with sections 5, 79 and 80 to appreciate that the provision for payment of interest in a Promissory Note did not render it invalid. He also referred to Halsbury's Laws para 235 at page 105 which provided that any instrument payable with ''lawful interest" could not be held to be invalid for uncertainty. He also referred to section 9 of the English Bill of Exchange Act which defined the sum payable to include the interest also which was ascertainable u1s 57 of the Act. 5. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant supported this position and submitted that so long as the disputed instrument provided for 2% interest per month, the-sum payable was ascertainable and could not be said to be uncertain to violate the requirement of section 4. Both counsel placed reliance on 1994 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 104 = 1993 MPLJ 137 (Goel Industries & another v. Om Prakash Mittal); AIR 1960 Raj. 20 (Raghunath Prasad v.MangiLal); AIR 1946 Nag. 81 (Balmukund Jainarayan & another v. Ambadas Damodhar & others) and AIR 1929 Patna 136 (Lakshminath v. Benares Bank Ltd. & others). All these judgments reiterate the view that if the rate of interest was specified in the document, the certainty of sum payable would not be affected as it would be still ascertainable by a calculation. But where a document failed to specify the rate of interest, it could not be treated to be a Promissory Note u/s 4 of the Act. It thus becomes unnecessary to extract the relevant portions from these judgments. 6. But where a document failed to specify the rate of interest, it could not be treated to be a Promissory Note u/s 4 of the Act. It thus becomes unnecessary to extract the relevant portions from these judgments. 6. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act defines a "Promissory Note" as 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 only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. According to this definition an instrument must possess the following characteristics to be the promissory note :- (i) an unconditional undertaking to pay; (ii) the payment must be of a certain amount of money only and not money and something else; (iii) undertaking must be in writing signed by the make of it and; (iv) money must be payable to or to the order of certain person or bearer. 7. Viewed thus, an instrument for claiming the status of a Promissory Note must ensure four types of commercial certainties viz :- (a) certainty of payment (b) certainty of amount (c) certainty of person liable and certainty of payee. Conversly where any of the attributes was missing and the instruments suffered from uncertainty on any of the counts, it would cease to be a Promissory Note. 8. In other words a Promissory Note should be a Promissory Note both in form and content and merely because the instrument provided for a payment of interest, by itself could not infringe on its character and dilute its status so long as the sum payable is ascertainable even by the process of calculation. 9. This finds support in the allied provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act itself, section 5 whereof supports this view while providing that a sum payable may be certain within its meaning and that of section 4, although it includes future interest or is payable at an indicated rate of exchange, or is according to the course of exchange. Similarly section 79 also contemplates provision for payment of interest in a Promissory Note and provides that when interest at a specified rate is expressly made payable on a Promissory Note, or bill of exchange, such interest shall be calculated at the rate specified. Similarly section 79 also contemplates provision for payment of interest in a Promissory Note and provides that when interest at a specified rate is expressly made payable on a Promissory Note, or bill of exchange, such interest shall be calculated at the rate specified. This provision itself permits for payment of interest in a Promissory Note so long as its rate is specified and it is incorrect to suggest that it was referable to the date from which the rate of interest would run. Additionally section 80 covers an eventuality when no rate of interest was specified in the instrument. It postulates that where no rate of interest was specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due shall be calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. This further goes to show that even unspecified rate of interest would not invalidate a promissory note for the reason of uncertainty of the sum payable. 10. All this is analogous to the provisions of the English Bill of Exchange Act with a minor difference that where no rate of interest was prescribed, it was presumed to at 5%. Therefore, the position in English Law also was that an instrument payable with ''lawful interest" was not liable to be invalidated for uncertainty. 11. Viewed thus, we hold that even though the payment of a certain sum was an essential attribute of a Promissory Note under section 4, provision of interest at a specified rate in it would not make the sum any less uncertain as it could involve the process of calculation to ascertain the sum payable and thus would not dilute its nature or invalidate it. Likewise it is incorrect to suggest that section 79 only provided for the date from which the interest was to be calculated. On the contrary, this by itself allowed provision of interest in a Promissory Note. The other issue that if the amount of interest contained in an instrument was not paid by a certain date, it would make the undertaking conditional appears to us wholly hypothetical. 12. Applying all this to the present case, we find nothing wrong in the disputed promissory note, relevant portion whereof reads thus :- "...... I have taken Rs. 18,908.00 from you and promised to pay with interest after calculating @ Rs. 2/- per month on demand within two months." 13. 12. Applying all this to the present case, we find nothing wrong in the disputed promissory note, relevant portion whereof reads thus :- "...... I have taken Rs. 18,908.00 from you and promised to pay with interest after calculating @ Rs. 2/- per month on demand within two months." 13. As would be evident, this Promissory Note contains an additional promise to pay with a specified rate of 2% interest per month. As such even though it provides for payment or interest, the amount payable still remained certain, capable of being determined by a simple calculation. It cannot, therefore, be said or held that the instrument fell short of any of the requirements provided in section 4 to warrant its rejection. 14. The reference is answered accordingly and the appeal No. 86/84, be posted before the appropriate bench for decision on merits in accordance with law.