G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE suit was based on a hand-note executed by defendant 1 for Rs. 301 on 206-62 as the loan was not repaid despite repeated demands. Defendant 1 contested the suit alleging that he did not receive the loan nor executed the promissory note. His case was that he and the plaintiff used to take advances from one mankchand Company for supplying jute. Plaintiff settled the accounts regarding the profits accruing to defendant 1. Plaintiff wanted the defendants to do jute business with him. As defendant 1 did not agree a false suit was brought on the forged hand-note.

( 2 ) THE learned Munsif held that the hand-note was inadmissible in evidence as it was insufficiently stamped. He rejected plaintiff's prayer for amendment of the plaint and dismissed the suit after trial. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal allowed the amendment and remanded the suit for fresh hearing with full opportunities to the parties to lead further evidence. Against the order of remand, the civil revision has been filed.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the hand-note is insufficiently stamped and is inadmissible in evidence. It is affixed with two revenue stamps worth one anna each when one