Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed by the plaintiff, against an interim order, dated 30. 6. 2000 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1998. The need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right of civil revision which he could have filed earlier under Section 115 of C. P. Code i. e. prior to amendment in the C. P. C. which was brought into effect from 1. 7. 2002. ( 2. ) HEARD Mr. M. K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Phaye, learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 3. ) THE short but legal question that arises for consideration in this writ is, whether learned trial Judge was justified in holding that the document in question (Exhibit P-2) is and bond and not a promissory note? In other words, the question that arises for consideration is, whether Exhibit P-2 can be held to be a bond or a promissory note on its true construction? It is this finding, recorded by the learned trial Judge holding the document to be a bond which is assailed by the plaintiff in this writ. To decide this question, it is really not necessary to take note of several other facts which are involved in the suit. ( 4. ) AS observed supra, if the contention of the plaintiff is that the document in question i. e. Exhibit P-2 is a promissory note, the case of the defendant is that it is in fact a bond. Indeed, it is this objection raised by the defendant before the trial Court which found acceptance, giving rise to filing of this writ by the plaintiff. ( 5. ) THE question, as to what should be the test to determine the true nature of a particular document remains no longer res integra so far as this High Court is concerned. The question arose before the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, as to what should be the true criteria in determining the nature of a document and in what circumstances the same can be held to be a bond or a promissory note in the case of Sant Singh v. Madandas Panika, (1976) JLJ 235. The question arose before the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, as to what should be the true criteria in determining the nature of a document and in what circumstances the same can be held to be a bond or a promissory note in the case of Sant Singh v. Madandas Panika, (1976) JLJ 235. The Full Bench of this High Court laid down following tests so far as promissory note is concerned as also the bond. This is what Their Lordships unanimously held: The essentials of a promissory note are- (1) An unconditional undertaking to pay; (2) The sum should be a sum of money and should be certain; (3) The payment should be to the order of a person who is certain, or to the bearer of the instrument; and (4) The maker should sign it. If these four conditions exist, the instrument is a promissory note. The essentials of a bond are- (1) There must be an undertaking to pay; (2) The sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain; (3) The payment will be to another person named in the instrument; (4) The maker should sign it; (5) The instrument must be attested by a witness; and (6) It must not be payable to order or bearer. Their Lordships then made a comparison between the essentials of a promissory note and those of a bond and culled out three distinguishing features as follows: (i) If money payable under the instrument is not certain, it cannot be a promissory note, although it can be a bond. (ii) If the instrument is not attested by a witness, it cannot be a bond, although it may be a promissory note. (iii) If the instrument is payable to order or bearer, it cannot be a bond, but it can be a promissory note. ( 6. ) THE aforementioned tests are the only tests which are material and decisive in determining the true character of a document as and when it falls for its interpretation. ( 7. ) COMING to the document in question i. e. Exhibit P-2 which is filed herewith as Annexure A-4 in this petition, I find rather I am inclined to hold that it has an attribute of promissory note rather than that of a bond, Firstly, it specifically contains a recital that the amount shall be paid on demand. ( 7. ) COMING to the document in question i. e. Exhibit P-2 which is filed herewith as Annexure A-4 in this petition, I find rather I am inclined to hold that it has an attribute of promissory note rather than that of a bond, Firstly, it specifically contains a recital that the amount shall be paid on demand. Secondly, a fixed sum of money (Rs. 2,00,000/-) is payable. Thirdly, it is payable to a particular person on demand and lastly, k is signed by a maker. Indeed, these four essentials attributes of a promissory note are so visible on the document in question that there is no ambiguity in it. ( 8. ) IN my opinion, therefore, the learned trial Judge committed an error of law when he instead of finding out these essentials/ingredients/attributes of a promissory note being present or not concentrated on an issue that the document in question is also attested by certain witnesses. Merely, because a document in question is attested by two witnesses would not make the document a Bond when it otherwise satisfies a requirement of the promissory note. As taken note of supra, for a promissory note attestation of a witness is not required though it is so required for bond. ( 9. ) THE aforementioned error which is taken note of by this Court is an error of law. It is required to be corrected in exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power of superintendence is essentially to be used in such type of cases. It, therefore, calls for interference by this Court. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order, dated 30. 6. 2000 (Annexure A-4), passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 5-B of 1998 is hereby quashed. It is held that Exhibit P-2 is a promissory note. The Trial Court is, therefore, directed to decide the suit treating Exhibit P-2 to be a promissory note.