( 1 ) THE appellant's (sic) (respondent's?) suit was based on a bond for Rs. 880/ (Ex. pl.) under which the defendant is purported to have obtained a lean of Rs. 880/- in cash. The defendant denied that any cash consideration passed. He also pleaded a repayment of Rs. 398a. The trial Judge dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court has found that no cash consideration passed from the plaintiff to the defendant on the date of the execution of the bond but on the defendant's admission he found that a decree could be passed against him.

( 2 ) IT is argued by Shri Gupta that there was no case in the plaint nor in the statement of the plaintiff or his witnesses that there was any previous account under which the defendant was liable to pay Rs. 880/-, the defendant's admission should either have been taken into account as a whole or should have been ignored. But the lower Court has passed a decree on this basis without taking into consideration his objection that interest at a rate which was not allowable had been included and compound interest had also been charged. Learned counsel also argues that there was no admission as to the execution of the particular document w