S. Mohan, J.

1. An interesting question arises in this civil revision petition. The facts are as follows: The petitioner as plaintiff preferred S.C.S.No. 23 of 1980 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 463.25. The defendant (respondent-herein), admittedly, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 600 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour on 27th January, 1975, agreeing to Day the principal together with interest at 12% p.a. In view of the publication of Ordinance 5 of 1978, S.C.S.No. 154 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kovilpatti the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 392.95, that is, half towards principal and interest, and by passing the receipt Exhibit B-1 the claim was settled on 14th November, 1978 and the claim was satisfied. Thereafter, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 came into force. As per the provisions of the said Act, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount as recited in the promissory note. Giving credit to the amount received under Ex.B-1, for the remaining amount, namely, Rs. 463.25 the suit S.C.S.No. 23 of 1980 came to be filed. In defence it was contended that the suit was not maintainable in law, in so far as Exhibit B-1 in fu