JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan, J - This revision application by the defendant under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge of Fyzabad, acting as a Judge Small Cause Court, decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff came to Court on the basis of a promissory note executed in his favour on 16th April 1935, by Jai Sri Shukul, now deceased, for a sum of Rs. 230. Jai Sri Shukul and Sampat Shukul, the present defendant, applicant, were brothers. It appears that on 22nd April 1929, Sampat Shukul borrowed Rs. 100 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour for that amount. He did not discharge the debt due under the promissory note and had to execute a fresh promissory note on 20th April 1932, for Rs. 154 the sum then due. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendant did not pay anything towards the last mentioned promissory note with the result that he obtained another promissory note--the one in suit--on 16th April 1935, from his elder brother Jai Sri Shukul, who was the karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of the two brothers, as the defendant was absent from home and was staying in Amrauti. The plaintiff alleged that Jai Sri Shukul deceased acknowledged and accepted the debt due under the previous promissory notes and executed a fresh promissory note in his favour. Jai Sri Shukul died in February 1937, and the defendant according to the plaintiff was in possession of the property left by the deceased and was also liable for his debt.

2. The defendant admitted that he and Jai Sri Shukul formed a joint Hindu family of which the latter was the karta. He denied the promissory note, the passing of the consideration and further alleged that Jai Sri Shukul did not execute the promissory note in suit out of his own free will. His further defence was that he had succeeded by the right of survivorship and was, therefore, not liable and did not receive any assets from the deceased. He also pleaded limitation. The suit was filed on 14th April 1938, when the period of limitation was about to run out. On 23rd May 1938, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment alleging that there had been some accidental omission in the plaint. The amendment sought was that the debt in question had been borrowed for the benefit of the joint family. The relief was also amended and the liability of the defendant was urged on the ground that he was liable both personally as well as in the capacity of a member of the joint Hindu family. The defendant's pleader in opposing the application stated that in case the amendment was allowed he should be given the costs of adjournment and time to meet the amended claim. The Court allowed the application for amendment, awarded Rs. 8 as costs to the defendant and gave a fresh date to enable the defendant to raise any pleas he wished to raise in reply to the amendment.

3. The defendant in para. 16 of the amended written statement stated that the suit in so far as it related to the question whether the debt had been borrowed for the benefit of the joint family was barred by time. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note of 1929.

4. As regards the promissory note of 1932, the trial Court noted that its execution was admitted by the defendant in the first written statement filed by him but he subsequently denied it. This promissory note was written in the handwriting of his own son. As regards the promissory note in suit, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the defendant and believed the evidence of the plaintiff and held that the promissory note was executed for consideration and that it was not executed in respect of a time-barred debt. The trial Court further found that the ' defendant had borrowed money on the first promissory note for payment of rent or revenue, and recorded the conclusion that the debt was taken for the benefit of the joint Hindu family consisting of the defendant and Jai Sri S