JUDGMENT Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners . plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against the present respondents and in it they have produced a document titled agreement dated 7.9.2004 in support of their contention. The present respondents raised an objection and contended that it is a bond and, therefore, the document should be impounded. The contention of present petitioners in reply was that it is only an acknowledgment and the Court below has by impugned order dated 13.8.2008 held that the document was not an acknowledgment but a bond. It has, therefore, allowed the objection raised by the present respondents and directed the petitioners/ plaintiffs to pay requisite stamp duty. 3. Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying upon the definition of Bond in Section 2(c) of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contends that the document dated 7.9.2004 is not basically attested by the witness. He further states that the document itself shows that it is in respect of old or pre-existing liability. He, therefore, states that on both these counts, the document cannot be treated as a bond and ought to have been read as acknowledgment. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Patel Stone Trading Company vs. Ramsing, reported at AIR 1975 Bom. 79 , particularly paragraph 4. 4. Shir Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents, relies upon the language of the document and explanation to Section 2(c) of the Act to urge that the Court below has rightly treated the document as a bond and not an acknowledgment. He also relies upon the above referred judgment and subsequent judgment in the case of Lexicon Finance vs. Park Securities, reported at 2004 (1) Mh. L.J. 934, in which said judgment has been followed. He contends that the document nowhere shows that earlier there was any promise to pay. 5. I have perused the document in dispute as also both the judgments on which respective learned counsel have placed reliance. The perusal of Patel Stone Trading Co. L.J. 934, in which said judgment has been followed. He contends that the document nowhere shows that earlier there was any promise to pay. 5. I have perused the document in dispute as also both the judgments on which respective learned counsel have placed reliance. The perusal of Patel Stone Trading Co. vs. Ramsing, (supra) particularly paragraph 2 shows that similar contention was raised before this Court by pointing out that the document there was merely an agreement providing for payment of preexisting debt and, therefore, it was not a bond. It was contended that the document accepted that the amount was payable. The consideration in paragraphs 4 and 5 is relevant and those paragraphs read as under : 4. The real test to decide as to whether a particular document is a bond or not, is to find out after reading the document as a whole as to whether an obligation is created by the document itself or it is merely an acknowledgment of a pre-existing liability. If there is merely an acknowledgment of pre-existing liability which could have been enforced apart from the document itself, then the matter stands on a different footing. But if the document creates an obligation in itself with an express promise for payment of an amount, in my opinion such a document will have to be termed as a bond within the meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Bombay Stamp Act. 5. In (AIR 1972 Madh Pra 54), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has drawan a distinction between an acknowledgment and a bond. After observing that the word .acknowledgment has not been defined in the Act, but it would be pertinent to refer to Article 1 of the Act, which gives its description and thereafter reading the proviso, it was observed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court : Thus, on reading the aforesaid description in Article 1 with sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act, it would appear that where an acknowledgment contains a promise to pay, it is not to be stamped as an acknowledgment, but will have to be stamped as a bond, where it is attested by a witness and is not payable to order or bearer.. In substance, therefore, if an express stipulation regarding the payment of an amount is incorporated in the document itself, in my opinion, the document will have to be construed as a bond because it creates an obligation in itself. So far as the present document is concerned, the defendant has acknowledged the liability for an amount of Rs.24,596.30 and had expressly promised to repay the same and such a promise has been incorporated in the document itself. In the said document, there is an acknowledgment of an ascertained amount with a further promise to pay the amount with interest and the document is attested by witnesses.. 6. It is not necessary for me to refer to the judgment in the case of Lexicon Finance vs. Park Securities (supra) because the same law has been applied there to document and relevant clauses i.e. clauses (5) & (6) are reproduced in paragraph 3 of said judgment. The document has been treated as a bond and the document was ordered to be impounded. 7. Section 2(c) of the Act is an inclusive definition of a bond and its relevant portion i.e. clause (ii) is as under : (ii) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby, a person obliges himself to pay money to another;. Thus, the said portion requires the instrument to be attested. During arguments before me, xerox copy of agreement was produced to show that it has not been so attested. Shri Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that it is not attested by witnesses. However, he has invited attention to explanation to Section 2(c) above state that the word attested in said clause (ii) has been given a different meaning for the purposes of said definition and Notary before whom the document has been executed by the respondent is, therefore, deemed to have attested the execution of said document. He contends that Notary has witnessed the respondent while putting her signature on said document and that is sufficient attestation for the purposes of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act. 7A. The explanation to Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act, clearly shows that the word attested in relation to an instrument means attested by one or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument. 7A. The explanation to Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act, clearly shows that the word attested in relation to an instrument means attested by one or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument. The document is executed before one Indrakumar Hotchandani i.e. a Notary at Gondia and it is, therefore, more than clear that he has witnessed the executant i.e. present respondent putting her signature on said document. The requirement of explanation to Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act is, therefore, satisfied in present case. The contention that the document is not attested, therefore, cannot be accepted. 8. The language of agreement itself falsifies the contention that there was any pre-existing liability accepted by the respondent. The document only mentions that amount of Rs.90,000/- was taken in cash. However, this line which is first sentence of the document nowhere mentions that it is taken as a loan. The second sentence thereafter promises to pay that amount back and that promise is in the present and for that a cheque of Rs.90,000/- of future date has been handed over. Thus, it is not a reproduction of what was already agreed orally between the parties earlier. The promise to repay is then made (in present) only in said agreement. During arguments, it has been specifically stated that apart from this document, there is no other receipt or any other chit or similar paper with the petitioner to show the payment of amount to the respondent. It is, therefore, obvious that the document for the first time contains a promise of repayment to present petitioner. The document, therefore, cannot be said to be a mere acknowledgment of preexisting liability. There is nothing in the document to show that the respondent accepted any such pre-existing liability. If the document is read in the light of facts disclosed, it is apparent that the liability to repay is coming on record or accepted for the first time in said document. The trial Court has, therefore, correctly treated the document as a bond. 9. I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment of the trial Court. Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.