The plaintiff’s case was that she had advanced a loan of Rs. 320 to defendants 1 and 2, and that she subsequently on the same day obtained from them Exhibit A-1, which purported to be a promissory note for that amount. Exhibit A-1, however, could not be relied upon as a promissory note and admitted in evidence as such, because it was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff therefore laid the suit on the original cause of action, the debt itself, independent of the promissory note. There were, however, endorsements of payment on Exhibit A-1, which were marked as Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4. The plaintiff relied on these endorsements of payment to save the claim based on the original cause of action from being barred by limitation.

The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the plaintiff’s evidence, that the promissory note in question, Exhibit A-1, was executed as security for the debt subsequently on the date on which the advance of loan was made, and the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the plaintiff’s contention, that the suit was maintainable on the original cause of action, the debt, even though Exhibit A-1 was inadmissible in evidence as a promissory note. The learned Judge,