Kumarasami Sastri, J.

1. The defendant is the petitioner. The plaintiff who is a Vakil practising in Tanjore sued to recover Rs. 136 with costs and further interest alleged to be due on a promissory note dated 28th July 1909 for Rs. 100 executed by the defendant in his favor. The defendant, while admitting execution pleaded that there was no consideration for the promissory note, that it was obtained from him by the exercise of undue influence and that the note is void as the plaintiff did not file it in Court as required by Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act. It was also alleged that the suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. as the plaintiff had obtained another promissory note in respect of fees due to him and had not included this claim in the suit (O.S. No. 351 of 1912) filed on that promissory note. The District Munsif found against the defendant and passed a decree for the amount. There is no evidence to shew that the promissory note was either without consideration or was executed owing to the exercise of undue influence. The defendant examined himself and two witnesses. His first witness who is plaintiffs gum stab, states that the plaintiff had paid R