1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit by a Sugar company, having a sugar factory, for recovery of a loan on the basis of a promissory note for Rs. 2000 executed by the defendant respondent in favour of the plaintiff on the 11th February, 1957. The defendant took two main pleas: (1) the suit did not lie on the ground that it was barred by rule 42A of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1938, made in pursuance of certain provisions of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937, and (2) the loan on the basis of the promissory note was not an independent one, inasmuch as this transaction was connected with the supply of sugarcane to the plaintiff company. Both the courts upheld the defence, but they did not record any finding on the other issues arising out of the pleadings.

2. Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha, who appeared for the appellant, has contended that Rule 42A is invalid, because the Bihar Act has been found by this court to be unconstitutional in the unreported decision in Cr. WJC Nos. II and 31 of 1966 (Pat) A. K. Jain V/s. Government of India decided by a Bench of this court on 4-7-1966 and rule 42A has been found to be invalid by another unreported bench