1. The respondent filed O.S.No.331 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Darsi against the appellant for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note, dated 21.04.2008. He pleaded that the appellant is due a sum of Rs.61,332/- under the promissory note and in spite of demands, he did not pay the amount.

2. In his written statement, the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was initially borrowed on 21.04.2002 under a promissory note (marked as Ex.B1), that he paid a sum of Rs.16,000/- and therafter, executed another promissory note for a sum of Rs.35,600/- on 21.04.2005 (marked as Ex.B2). According to him, the suit promissory note, dated 21.04.2008 (marked as Ex.A1) is only a document, acknowledging the earlier debt covered by Ex.B1. He pleaded that what becomes payable is only a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest thereon and not the one covered by Ex.A1.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.61,332/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S.No.9 of 2010 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. The appeal was dismissed on 09.02.2011. Hence, this second appeal.

4. Sri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the view taken by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court is untenable and contrary to Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). He contends that once the principal amount is mentioned in a promissory note, interest becomes payable on that and not with reference to the amounts mentioned in the subsequent promissory notes, if any, relating to the same transaction. He further submits that the trial Court has, on the one hand, proceeded as though Ex.A1 is without any consideration; and on the other hand, passed a decree in favour of the respondent.

5. Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the appellant did not dispute the execution of Ex.A1 and the principal amount mentioned in the said promissory note i.e. Rs.61,332/-. He submits that the amount borrowed in the year 2002 remained unpaid till the year 2008, except for a sum of Rs.16,000/- and that unable to pay the amount due, the appellant has chosen to execute Ex.A1. He contends that the said promissory note is fully supported by consideration in the form of the amount due and the appellant failed to pay the same. He contends that though the appellant was liable to pay interest on Rs.61,332/- from the date of Ex.A1 or from the date of decree, the trial Court decreed the suit awarding interest only on a sum of Rs.30,000/- and with a view to avoid further litigation, his client did not prefer any appeal or Cross-Objections.

6. The respondent based his claim on Ex.A1. The appellant did not dispute the execution thereof. On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was filed. The appellant deposed as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed. The trial Court framed two issues for its consideration and decreed the suit directing that the appellant shall be under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.61,332/- and with interest at the rate of 6% on Rs.30,000/- from the date of decree. In A.S.No.9 of 2010 filed by the appellant, the lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely whether the judgment and decree of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi requires interference of this Court and the appeal was dismissed.

7. Two contentions are advanced before this Court. The first is that Ex.A1 cannot be said to be a document, supported by consideration. For this propose, it becomes necessary to refer to the definition of a “promissory note” as defined under Section 4 of the Act. It reads as under:

8. “Promissory note: A “promissory note” is an instrument in writing (not being a banknote or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a ce