Gruer, J—The plaintiff non-applicant brought this suit for recovery of an amount due on a pro-note for Rs. 4000. By an interlocutory order the lower Court has found that the set-off pleaded by defendant cannot be allowed in this suit and that he is at liberty to bring a separate suit against the plaintiff for his claim. Defendant comes 1940 N/23 & 24 up in revision against this interlocutory order. The alleged set-off appears in defendant's lengthy written statement which is so couched that it is difficult to say whether defendant then envisaged a legal set-off, an equitable set-off or a counter-claim or a plea of satisfaction or a combination of some of these defences. The learned Judge in his order does not state whether he is speaking of legal set-off or equitable set-off. When I asked learned Counsel for the applicant to be precise now at least about his client's claim he says it is a legal set-off. So the position must be examined primarily from that standpoint.

2. The facts pleaded in defence fall under two heads. Defendant says that after the execution of the promissory note plaintiff engaged in some wagering contracts in Bombay in which he lost nearly Rs. 60,000. At