Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 3,32,100/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization against all the three defendants.

2. The respondent-plaintiff in the suit filed by him against the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 for the recovery of the aforesaid amount had alleged in the plaint that the defendants No. 1 and 2 (the appellants herein), who were known to the plaintiff, had approached the plaintiff somewhere in July, 2000 and informed the plaintiff about their plans for expanding their partnership business. Thereafter, it is alleged, the defendants No. 1 and 2 repeatedly approached the plaintiff to invest his money in the expansion project of their partnership business. In view of the assurances held out by them, the plaintiff agreed to invest his money with the defendants on the following terms and conditions, mutually settled and agreed upon between the parties in the suit:-

"(a) That the plaintiff was to invest a sum of Rs. 15,000/- every month with the defendants for a total of one and half years (18months) starting from 10th August, 2000 to 10th January, 2002.

(b) That on this Rs. 15,000/- deposited with the defendants every month the defendants No. 1 was to issue a Promissory Note of the equivalent amount and pay interest @ 24% per annum.

(c) That the Promissory Notes were to be for a period of one and half years, after which the defendants were to return the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- along with interest at the above mentioned rate of 24% per annum."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid oral understanding arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff regularly deposited with the defendants a sum of Rs. 15,000/- beginning 10th August, 2000, and in all a total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was deposited with the defendants till 10th January, 2002 by the plaintiff, thereby complying with his part of the agreement. The defendant No. 2 regularly issued promissory notes on the terms and conditions as stated above after receiving every payment of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff, the details whereof are set out in paragraph 6 of the plaint. However, in January, 2002, when the time came for repayment of the amount mentioned in the promissory note of 10th August, 2000, the defendants delayed the payment of the amount due, viz., the principal amount and the interest thereon @ 24% per annum, and sought time on the pretext that the extension plans undertaken by the respondent were not yet fulfilled. The defendants further promised the plaintiff that they will pay the amount due as on 10th January, 2002 in the next month along with the amount due in lieu of the promissory note executed by them on 10th September, 2000. On their failure to honour their commitments, the plaintiff was constrained to serve the defendants with a legal notice dated 20th April, 2002. Despite the issuance and service of the said notice dated 20th April, 2002, as alleged in the plaint, the defendants have till date failed to clear the outstanding of Rs. 3,32,100/-. Hence, the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. On receiving summons of the suit, the defendants (the appellants herein) entered appearance and also filed an application for leave to defend the suit. The defendants-appellants were granted unconditional leave to defend and, therefore, filed their written statement.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants principally on the ground that the promissory notes were not admissible in evidence being payable "otherwise than on demand". This being so, the alleged promissory notes were not duly stamped as required under Entry 49 read with Entry 13 of the First Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and in view of Section 35 of the said Act, were not admissible in evidence. A number o