JUDGMENT : This appeal under section 96, Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant after obtaining permission to file appeal as indigent, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-9-2006 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2006 dismissing his suit. 2. In brief the case of plaintiff is that defendant who is a businessman is his good friend. To carry out his business and by demonstrating before the plaintiff that he is in financial crisis he made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- which plaintiff gave to him after executing a promissory note. Earlier to the execution of this document on 23-11-1998 a document of agreement was executed between the parties that if 50% of the profit which the defendant would earn in his business is not paid to the plaintiff, he (the defendant) will pay interest @ 24% per annum. In pursuance to the aforesaid, on 27-11-1998 a sum of Rs. 14,500/- was given by plaintiff to the defendant on credit. The defendant after some days again contacted plaintiff and requested that his business is not going on properly and he is in need of some more money so that he may streamline his business and the conditions embodied in the document of agreement which he has written in favour of plaintiff may be fulfilled. On 4-12-1998 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and again on the same date he obtained a sum of Rs. 25,500/- and thus, in total the defendant has already obtained a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him and has executed a promissory note in his favour acknowledging that whenever the plaintiff would demand to pay Rs. 50,000/- it will be paid with interest to him. 3. Further it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that after executing a promissory note, the defendant took back the document of agreement dated 23-11-1998 from plaintiff because he has executed a document of promissory note and he will abide the conditions mentioned in it. In para-7 of the plaint it is also pleaded that plaintiff was having a residential house in Shivrampur, District Chitrakoot (Uttar Pradesh), which was sold for Rs. 53,000/- to Premnarayan Singh and said amount was invested in Kisan Vikas Patra, G.P.O. Post Office, Satna, but, in order to fulfil the request of defendant the said Kisan Vikas Patra was encashed before its due date. 53,000/- to Premnarayan Singh and said amount was invested in Kisan Vikas Patra, G.P.O. Post Office, Satna, but, in order to fulfil the request of defendant the said Kisan Vikas Patra was encashed before its due date. The defendant did not pay any amount either towards the principal or towards the interest despite twice the demand was made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not a moneylender but the amount was given towards loan to the defendant because defendant is his good friend. Ultimately, when the principal amount and the interest was not paid by the defendant a registered acknowledgment due notice was sent by post to him on 18-6-2001, but, it was received back to the plaintiff with the endorsement of the postman 'refused to accept'. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff and it has been prayed that Rs. 50,000/- towards principal and Rs. 32,000/- towards interest, in total for Rs. 82,000/- the suit of plaintiff be decreed. An amount of interest @ 24% per annum in stipulation of paying 50% of profit by the defendant, from the date of filing of the suit till its realization has also been prayed in the plaint. 4. The defendant denied the plaint averments by filing a written statement and specifically denied that he had made any demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff and ever executed any promissory note in his favour. The factum of execution of agreement as well as receiving any notice has also been denied by him. In special plea it has been pleaded that on bare perusal of the document alleged to be stated as the promissory note, indeed is not a promissory note because a promissory note is an instrument in writing containing 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. Thus, prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties did not find the transaction as well as execution of promissory note to be proved and eventually dismissed the suit. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff assailing the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit. 6. 5. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties did not find the transaction as well as execution of promissory note to be proved and eventually dismissed the suit. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff assailing the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit. 6. In the trial Court the plaintiff filed suit as an indigent person, which was dismissed and this appeal has also been filed by him as an indigent. This Court in MCC No. 1025/2008 decided on 15-4-2009 allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order XLIV, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and permitted him to file appeal as an indigent person. 7. The plaintiff-appellant appeared in person and argued the appeal. He has also filed a note of written-submission. Having heard the appellant and also after going through his written-submission I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. As per the case of plaintiff, firstly on 23-11-1998 an agreement was executed between the parties and in pursuance to the same a sum of Rs. 14,500/-was obtained by defendant on 27-11-1998 under protest that he is facing financial crisis in his business. The said document of agreement dated 23-11-1998 is not on record. In the plaint as well as in his testimony the plaintiff has deposed that upon execution of promissory note (Ex.P-1) the defendant took back the document of agreement in original. The factum of execution of agreement and that it was taken back by defendant has been denied by him. The defendant has also further denied that he executed any pro-note in favour of plaintiff. The plaint as well as the evidence of plaintiff is silent as to whether the said agreement was attested by the witnesses nor they have been examined by the plaintiff in order to prove the alleged agreement. 9. In cross-examination the plaintiff has admitted that he has not filed any document to prove that he invested a sum of Rs. 53,000/- in the post office. Thus, the pleading of plaintiff that after selling his residential house in Shivrampur, District Chitrakoot (U.P.) he invested money in purchasing the Kisan Vikas Patra, G.P.O. Satna is not proved. 10. The basic document of the suit is promissory note (Ex.P-1) dated 4-12-1998. 53,000/- in the post office. Thus, the pleading of plaintiff that after selling his residential house in Shivrampur, District Chitrakoot (U.P.) he invested money in purchasing the Kisan Vikas Patra, G.P.O. Satna is not proved. 10. The basic document of the suit is promissory note (Ex.P-1) dated 4-12-1998. Before examining this document it will be appropriate to go through section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the Act of 1881") which defines the "promissory note". On bare perusal of this section it is revealed that a "promissory note" is 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. Thus, the essential requirement to hold a document to be a promissory note are : - (i) The document must contain an unconditional undertaking; (ii) signed by the maker; (iii) to pay a certain some of money only to maker; or (iv) to the order of maker to a certain person; or (v) to the bearer of the instrument. If the impugned document (Ex.P-1) which has been named as promissory note (Indul Talab Rukkd) is tested and read in terms of section 4 of the Act of 1881 it is obvious that this document cannot be said to be a promissory note. It would be quite relevant to re-write the document in its entirety, which reads, thus : - XXX XXX XXX 11. In the aforesaid document (Ex.P-1) although it is mentioned that if on the demand of money made by the plaintiff it will be paid to him by the defendant along with interest but in the earlier part of the document it has been written that the amount of loan has been obtained for a period of three years. Thus, I am of the view that the time limit which has been fixed in the document of agreement (Ex.P-1) will not come in any of the aforesaid essential ingredients constituting a document of promissory note as envisaged under section 4 of the Act of 1881. Thus, I am of the view that the time limit which has been fixed in the document of agreement (Ex.P-1) will not come in any of the aforesaid essential ingredients constituting a document of promissory note as envisaged under section 4 of the Act of 1881. Further in Ex.P-1 it has been written that 50% of the profit or interest @ 24% per annum whichever would be on the higher side would be payable to the plaintiff and in his absence it will be paid to his minor children Vikas and Vivek Agrawal. Thus, again laying down the aforesaid condition in the document (Ex.P-1) in regard to payment of profit or interest which ever would be on higher side cannot be said to be an ingredient of a promissory note. That apart, one more condition of acknowledging the earlier debt of Rs. 14,500/- received on 27-11-1998 in pursuance to agreement dated 23-11-1998, which has been embodied in Ex.P-1, cannot be said to be the essential condition to constitute a document to be a promissory note. Hence, I am of the view that learned trial Court has rightly held that document (Ex.P-1) is not a promissory note. According to me, any promissory note was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff is not proved. 12. Apart from the reasons which I have stated hereinabove holding that the impugned document (Ex.P-1) is not a promissory note, on bare perusal of this document not only it appears to be a suspicious but its execution also becomes highly doubtful. In this document, firstly the date 14-12-1998' was typed at item No. 2 but the figure T has been encircled by a circle making a date 14-12-1998' to be 4-12-1998' and there is no signature of the defendant. Thereafter, at item No. 3 handwritten date 4-12-1998' was firstly written as 14-12-1998' but by encircling the figure the date has been made to 4-12-1998'. The figure Rs. 10,000/-' and the words Ten Thousand' are typed but the date 4-12-1998 in item No. 3 in Ex.P-1 is handwritten and there is no signature of the defendant on the handwritten date. Thus, I am of the view that in these circumstances, the execution of this document becomes highly suspicious and its execution also becomes highly doubtful. 13. 10,000/-' and the words Ten Thousand' are typed but the date 4-12-1998 in item No. 3 in Ex.P-1 is handwritten and there is no signature of the defendant on the handwritten date. Thus, I am of the view that in these circumstances, the execution of this document becomes highly suspicious and its execution also becomes highly doubtful. 13. A specific objection has been raised by defendant in his written-statement that the document which has been filed by plaintiff is not a promissory note. Since the impugned document cannot be said to be a promissory note and it is also suspicious, therefore, I am of the view that learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiff. Even otherwise, I have gone through the reasoning assigned by learned trial Court which has been arrived at after marshalling the oral and documentary evidence vis-a-vis to the parties and I do not want to deviate from those well considered reasonings. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are hereby directed to bear their own costs. Since appellant appeared in person and addressed the appeal, the Registry is hereby directed to send a notice intimating him that his appeal has been dismissed. Appeal dismissed.