ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :- "1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deedwana may kindly be set aside and adjudication of the 2. The petitioner/defendants may kindly be granted opportunity to produce his/their evidence. 3. Any other appropriate order, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,06,888/- under Order 7, Rule 1 of CPC against the defendant-respondent. 3. The bone of contention in the impugned order is that the learned court below has treated Annexure-1 as a Bond and on account of insufficient stamp duty, the same has been declared to be inadmissible in evidence vide order dated 12.03.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the definition of the term 'Bond', as provided under Section 2 subsection (vi) (b) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, does not include the receipt which is there as Annexure-1. The said subsection (vi) (b) of Section 2 reads as under :- "Any instrument attested and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and" 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has however shown from the language of Annexure-1 that it is an instrument, which is attested and person making it, has created an obligation upon himself to pay the money to another, and therefore, it falls within the definition of 'Bond', as provided under the Rajasthan Stamp Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that since the document in question is a valid Bond, therefore, the impugned order is well justified. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that since the document in question is a valid Bond, therefore, the impugned order is well justified. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the impugned order, this Court finds that the definition of 'Bond', as provided under Section 2 (vi) (b) of Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998, clearly includes the obligation created by the person upon himself to pay money to another, which is reflected in Annexure-1, and thus, the impugned order does not deserve any interference on merits. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the learned court below is directed to send the document in question for impounding to the authority of Collector (Stamps), strictly in accordance with law, if such application is made.