ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission of the appeal which is pending for consideration on the question of admission from 20th October 1999. 2. This is defendant's second appeal under section 100, CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court granting decree in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent. 3. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) which amount is said to have been given as loan on 1st September 1995 by the appellant. The suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note (Exhibit P-3). 4. The only substantial question of law and the ground urged in this appeal is that a promissory note (Exhibit P-3) is not properly stamped as the promissory note is made on a adhesive stamp, it is argued by Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant that such a promissory note is not admissible in evidence and the learned Courts below have committed grave error in admitting the same in evidence and decreeing the suit. Inter alia contending that no adhesive stamp can be affixed on a promissory note, Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant seeks interference in the appeal. In support of his contention, he invites my attention to the law laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma [2000 (2) MPLJ 104]. He submits that as the document exhibit P-3 was not properly stamped, the judgment and decree passed is unsustainable and therefore, seeks for admission of this appeal. I have heard, Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the appeal and perused the record. 5. He submits that as the document exhibit P-3 was not properly stamped, the judgment and decree passed is unsustainable and therefore, seeks for admission of this appeal. I have heard, Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the appeal and perused the record. 5. In the case of Ismail Khan (supra), a Bench of this Court has considered the provisions of section 11 (b) of the Stamp Act, 1899 along with requirements of rule 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942 and after considering the aforesaid statutory provision and taking note of certain decision rendered by this Court vide order dated 30th September 1992 in CR No. 392 of 1971 [Kailash Chandra and others v. Lakhmichand and another], in paragraph 9, it has been held by the learned Court as under: "Considering the facts of the case, it is settled position that no adhesive stamp can be affixed on the pro notes executed within the territory of India and only adhesive stamps bearing inscription 'Revenue' should be used." The aforesaid finding is recorded on the basis of the observations and finding recorded by this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra and others (supra) wherein the learned Court has observed as under: "....... On the contrary, if rules 13 (f) and 17 are read together, it is quite clear that on pro-notes only adhesive stamps bearing inscription 'revenue' should be used. I do not, therefore, find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that the pro-note in question was not properly stamped. I may note here that Rule 3 has been subsequently amended so as to include revenue stamps issued by Government of India amongst the stamps that can be validly used. There is no controversy on this point." 6. It is clear from the aforesaid comnunciation of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ismail Khan (supra), so also, Kailash Chandra and others (supra) that in a promissory note the only adhesive stamp bearing ins9ription 'revenue' can be used. It is also indicated that after amendment to rule 3, the revenue stamp issued by the Government of India can also be validly used. The question, therefore, now is what is the nature of the stamp used in the promissory note in question, exhibit P-3. It is also indicated that after amendment to rule 3, the revenue stamp issued by the Government of India can also be validly used. The question, therefore, now is what is the nature of the stamp used in the promissory note in question, exhibit P-3. A perusal of the promissory note in question exhibit P-3 indicates that five adhesive stamps issued by the Government of India with a mark 'revenue' affixed on the promissory note. Once it is seen that the promissory note is executed by using a adhesive staps with the inscription 'revenue' the same is in conformity with the requirements of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ismail Khan (supra) and Kailash Chandra and others (supra). As the adhesive stamp used in the pro note in question (exhibit P-3) bears the inscription 'revenue'. I find no error in the judgment and decree concurrently, passed by the Courts below. 7. Accordingly, finding no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal, the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs and without notice to the respondents.