JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking to question the order dated 15.10.2011 passed by District Judge, Sirohi deciding issue No.7 against the petitioner and inter-alia holding that the document-in-question falls in the definition of 'bill of exchange' and the same was not merely an 'agreement' and as per the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1998'), a stamp duty of Rs. 4,000/- was payable and till such time the deficit stamp duty alongwith penalty is not deposited, the agreement dated 11.4.2009 is not admissible in evidence. Further direction has been issued to the plaintiff to deposit the deficit stamp duty including penalty within a period of 15 days from the date of order, thereafter, the said document would be admissible in evidence, otherwise, the same would not be admitted in evidence. 2. The order dated 15.10.2011 came to be passed in a suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff Ganesha Ram against defendant-respondent Sardarmal for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant took loan of Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff on 11.4.2009 in cash and agreed to pay the amount of loan by 31.10.2010 without interest and in case of failure to repay the said amount by 31.10.2010 interest @ 1.5% per month was payable. The said conditions were incorporated in an agreement executed on 11.4.2009 and the same was signed by the defendant. 3. On failure to pay the said amount, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2 lacs with interest from 11.4.2009. 4. The defendant-respondent filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and allegations about forging the document were made. In the additional plea, the issue relating to the agreement not being properly stamped and registered and the same, therefore, being inadmissible in evidence was also raised. 5. The trial court inter-alia framed several issues and issue No.7 related to the admissibility of the document dated 11.4.2009 (Annex.3). 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. 5. The trial court inter-alia framed several issues and issue No.7 related to the admissibility of the document dated 11.4.2009 (Annex.3). 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court fell in error in construing the document Annex.3 as 'bill of exchange' when in fact it was merely an 'agreement' and was, therefore, liable to stamp duty under Article 5(g) of the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and the said stamp duty had in fact been paid by the plaintiff and, therefore, the document was admissible in evidence. It was further contended that the document does not answer the description of 'bill of exchange' as defined by Section 2(iii) relating to 'bill of exchange' in the Act of 1998, ultimately, it was prayed that the order impugned may be set-aside and the document-in-question be held to be a duly stamped agreement.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that 'bill of exchange' defined in the Act of 1998 is not confined to bill of exchange as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and it includes any other document entitling any person to payment by any other person, any sum of money and, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in arriving at finding which it ultimately arrived at. It was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to notice the relevant contents of the agreement dated 11.4.2009, which reads as under:- " ;g gS fd eq> ljnkjey dks vius ?kjsyww dk;Z ,oa lkekftd dk;ksZ gsrq jde dh vko';drk gksus ls rFkk vki x.ks'kkjke esjs laca/kh gksusa ls eSaus vkils vkt jkst :i;s 2]00]000@& v{kjs nks yk[k :i;s vkils m/kkj fy;s gS rFkk vkils m/kkj fy;s gSa rFkk vkils vkt jkst mDr m/kkj yh jde :i;s 2]00]000@& v{kjs nks yk[k :i;s vkt jkst ls Ms<+ o"kZ dh vo/kh esa ;kfu fnukad 31-10-2010 rd fcuk C;kt ds vnk dj nawxk ftlesa fdlh rjg dh nsjh ;k mtjnkjh ugha d:axkA ;g fd eSa ljnkjey vkidks iqu% fo'okl fnykrk gwa fd vkils vkt jkst m/kkjyh mDr jde :i;s 2]00]000@& v{kjs nks yk[k :i;s fcuk fdlh mtj ,oa ,rjkt ds Ms<+ o"kZ dh vof/k esa ;kfu mijksDr fnukad 31-10-2010 rd fcuk C;kt ds vnk dj nwaxk ,oa blesa fdlh rjg dh nsjh ;k mtjnkjh djrk gwa rks vki mDr jde vkt jkst ls izfr ekg izfr lSadMk izfr ekg :i;s 1-50 ( Ms<+ :i;k ) C;kt lfgr vnk djus gsrq dkuwuu :i ls iw.kZr;k ikcZn jgwaxk ,oa esjs oa'k okfjlku o ifjojtu Hkh iw.kZr;k ikcan jgsaxs rFkk bl ckcr vki dkuwu dk;Zokgh dj e; [kpsZ gtsZ ds jde olwyh dj ldsaxs ,oa vki viuh jde olwyh gsrq ekStk euknj esa vkbZ esjh leLr d'f"k Hkwfe dks vius dCts dkLr esa ysus ds vf/kdkjh jgsaxs rFkk mlls jde olwyh djus ds gdnkj jgsaxsA fygktk ;g bdjkjukek eSaus esjh LosPNk ls fcuk fdlh ncko ds lksp le>dj fcuk fdlh u'ks irs iw.kZ gks'k gokl ranq:Lrh dh gkyr esa fy[kk; rsgjhj dj rdehy dj fn;k gS tks lgh lun jgs vkSj oDr t:jr ij dke vkosA bfr fnukad 11-4-2009 okj 'kfuA gLrk{kj jde ysukj%& ,l0Mh0 ljnkyey iq= Jh [klkth euknj gLrk{kj jde nsukj %& ,l0Mh0 x.ks'kkjke iq= Jh ylkth dSyk'kuxj " 10. It would also be relevant to notice the definition as contained in Section 2(iii) relating to 'bill of exchange', which reads as under:- "2(iii)- "bill of exchange" means a bill of exchange as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No.26 of 1881) and includes also a hundi, and any other document entitling or purporting to entitle any person, whether named therein or not to payment by any other person of, or to draw upon any other person for, any sum of money;" 11. A bare reading of the stipulation in the instrument as quoted above would reveal that the defendant Sardarmal has acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 2 lacs as loan and has further promised to repay the same with interest @ 1.5% per month. For a document to fall within the definition of bill of exchange as defined under the Act of 1998, the same should either answer the definition of bill of exchange as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or should entitle any person to payment by any other person, any sum of money. Admittedly, the instrument quoted above does not answer the definition of bill of exchange as defined by Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, inasmuch as, the same requires it to be signed by the maker, directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money only to or to the order of a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument. However, present document is signed by both the parties and does not contain any direction to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument. 12. The above instrument quoted above also cannot be termed as a document entitling any person to payment by any other person to any sum of money. However, present document is signed by both the parties and does not contain any direction to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument. 12. The above instrument quoted above also cannot be termed as a document entitling any person to payment by any other person to any sum of money. The instrument dated 11.4.2009 (Annex.3) by its very nature and the terms contained therein is clearly an agreement whereby the defendant Sardarmal has acknowledged the loan and has promised to pay the same back to the plaintiff with stipulation to pay interest in case he fails to pay the loan by a certain date and, therefore, the said instrument (Annex.3) as quoted here-in-before can only be termed as an 'agreement' and the same, therefore, bears sufficient stamp duty as envisaged under Article 5(g) of the schedule appended to the Act of 1998 and the learned trial court was clearly wrong in holding the document to be a bill of exchange. 13. The learned trial court without discussing anything regarding the document-in-question has jumped to the conclusion that the document was a bill of exchange and was not merely an agreement. The said approach of the learned trial court is clearly wrong. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.10.2011 is set-aside and the finding recorded by the learned trial court on issue No.7 is reversed and it is held that the agreement dated 11.4.2009 is admissible in evidence. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******