JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— In this appeal we are unable to agree with any of the opinions expressed by the two lower Courts. We think those opinions are absolutely wrong. The suit was one to recover the sum of Rs. 500 lent by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendants respondents. The allegations of the plaint are, that on the 8th of February, 1901, the plaintiff lent that sum to the defendants which they promised to repay, with interest, at 1 percent, per mensem on the 3rd of May, 1901. The debt being unpaid on that date, this suit was instituted to recover it. The cause of action, it will be seen, arose on the date after which the debt was payable and remained unpaid. Now at the time when the money was borrowed, a paper was written and signed by the three defendants who borrowed, the money. That paper or memorandum is in these words: ‘Account (lekha) of Bhawani Din Kalwar, Katwaru Kalwar and Bindeshri Kalwar, 8th February, 1901, interest 1 per cent, per mensem, payable 3rd of May, 1901, Rs. 500, borrowed from Udit Upadhia for a sugar factory.” This document was considered by the Court of first instance to be an acknowledgment which contains a promise to repay the sum borrowed. The translation given by the Munsif is misleading, as he inserted in it the words “with a promise to repay it.” No such words are to be found in the original. The learned Munsif then having inserted these words in the document, went on to hold that as the document contained those words, it should be treated as a “promissory note” and should have been stamped as such. He therefore impounded it and sent it to the Collector. Further, misapplying the opening clause of section 91 of the Evidence Act, he refused to allow the plaintiff to give any parol evidence of the debt The District Judge in appeal went further than the Munsif, He apparently was unable to decide whether this document was a promissory note or was a bond, and seemed also to think that it might be an acknowledgment which, under article 1 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act of 1899, required a stamp of more than one anna. He also concurred with the Munsif in excluding parol evidence of the debt, holding that the document contained a promise to repay the loan. He also concurred with the Munsif in excluding parol evidence of the debt, holding that the document contained a promise to repay the loan. Now, in all those matters, we think the lower Courts were wrong. 2. The document as we understand it is not a promissory note, it is not a bond, and it is not an acknowledgment of a debt, containing a promise to repay the debt or a stipulation to pay interest. To us it clearly appears to be nothing more than a mere memorandum or note drawn “up between the parties as to a transaction which had just been settled between them. There are in it no words containing any promise to repay or any stipulation to pay interest. In our opinion it is no more than if it had contained simply the words “memorandum : Rs. 500. interest 1 per cent, per month, term 3 months,” signed by the borrowers. Briefly put these words contain everything which was in the document produced in support of the appellant's case. We are very doubtful even that it is an “acknowledgment” requiring to be stamped with the anna stamp it bears. As to that matter, however, as the stamp has been affixed on it, we say nothing more. We must allow this appeal. We set aside the decisions of the two lower. Courts, and as the suit was dismissed by them on a preliminary point, and we have reversed their decisions on that point, we remand the case under section 562 of the Code of civil Procedure, through the lower appellate. Court to the Court of first instance, to be replaced on the file of pending suits and decided on the merits. The plaintiff is entitled in any case to his costs of this appeal. Other costs will abide the event.