( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was instituted for the recovery of Rs. 9,150/ -. The trial Court decreed the suit and in appeal the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Thus, the Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant is that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,150/- on Jan. 1, 1973 in the morning, and as a collateral security, he executed a promissory note in the evening and also passed on the receipt - Ex A1 - on the same date. In spite of the demand, the respondent did not pay the amount. Thus, he was constrained to lay the suit. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is pleaded that the appellant is a professional money-lender and he is not possessed of the licence required under the Hyderabad Money-Lenders Act. He also pleaded that the promissory note is an integral part of the original cause of action and the suit is not based on the original cause of action. Since the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence, the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court upheld the plea of the appellant that the original cause of action arose in the morning independent of the promissory note and relying upon that fact it n