1. It is contended before us in appeal that the document upon which the plaintiff sues is a “promissory note,” and that being so, it should have been stamped, and that the Collector, at a subsequent period, was unable to order it to be stamped on payment of a penalty. It appears to us, however, that the document before us cannot be so regarded. It is exactly of the same nature as the document which forms the subject of the suit in the case of Brojender Coomar v. Bromomoye Chowdhrani I.L.R. 4 Cal. 885; 3 C.L.R. 520. In that case White, J. in delivering the Judgment of the Court, expressed himself in the following terms: “Now, if any one of the entries in the hathchitta had stood alone, and had been intended by the parties to form an isolated entry in the book, it might have been contended with considerable force that it fell within the description of document mentioned in the 5th article as requiring a stamp. We think, however, that the entries cannot be detached from the account of which they form a part. That account has two sides to it, the one headed ‘amount advanced,’ and the other ‘amount received.’ The amount due varies from time to time, and depends upon the relation of the amount advanced to the amount received. In the present case no sum is entered under the head of ‘amount received,’ but that is an accident and makes no difference in considering the question as to what is the nature of the document which is offered in evidence.” The only difference between that case and the one now before us is, that, in the heading of the ‘amount received,’ there are two payments on the part of the debtor, amounting in all to Rs. 400. Being accordingly of opinion that the document in this case is not a “promissory note,” we think that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is correct and dismiss the appeal with costs.