JUDGMENT : Stanley, J. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of money alleged to have been lent by him to the defendant and to have been secured by a promissory note, dated the 12th of August, 1900. The defendant in his written statement denied that he either executed the note or received any consideration therefor, but he admitted that he had money dealings with the plaintiff, and that after adjusting the accounts there was a balance due by him to the plaintiff, but this balance he alleged was remitted. At the trial when the note was produced, it was found that though it bore the proper stamp, the stamp was not cancelled as required by section 12 of the Stamp Act and therefore must be treated as an unstamped document, and as such was inadmissible in evidence. The Court thereupon dismissed the suit and impounded the promissory note. 2. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decision of the Court below, holding that as the plaintiff did not allege original consideration in the Court below and as he made no attempt there and then to prove such a case,” he would not be justified in allowing the plaintiff to put forward such a case at the hearing and produce evidence in support of it. The assumption of the learned Judge is not strictly accurate. The plaintiff did in his plaint alleged consideration for the note, namely, the borrowing of money from him by the defendant. The allegation in the plaint is in the words of the Subordinate Judge as follows:— “The defendant took a loan of Rs. 572 and executed a promissory note.” It seems to us, therefore, that the Court of first instance ought not to have summarily dismissed the plaint but ought to have given the plaintiff an opportunity of proving the consideration for the note if there was such consideration. The law on the subject is clearly stated by GARTH, C.J., in the case of Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Shan, [1881] I.L.R., 7 Cal. 256. He points out in regard to the question whether evidence can be given aliunde to prove consideration for a note that this depends upon the circum stances under which the note was given. The law on the subject is clearly stated by GARTH, C.J., in the case of Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Shan, [1881] I.L.R., 7 Cal. 256. He points out in regard to the question whether evidence can be given aliunde to prove consideration for a note that this depends upon the circum stances under which the note was given. “When he observed” a cause of action for money is once complete in itself, whether for goods sold or for money lent, or for any other claim, and the debtor then gives a bill or note to the creditor for payment of the money at a future time, the creditor, if the bill or note is not paid at maturity, may always, as a rule, sue for the original consideration, provided that he had not endorsed or lost or parted with the bill or note under such circumstances as to make the’ debtor liable upon it to some third person.” Now here the plaintiff did state the consideration for the note, namely, money borrowed from him by the defendant. He states that security was given to him for that loan by the making of the note in question, and therefore it seems to us that it was open to him to give evidence aliunde to prove the consideration, even though the note was not admissible in evidence. We, therefore, must allow this appeal, and as the suit has not been properly tried, we set aside the decrees of both the lower Courts and remand it under section 562 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Court of first instance through the lower appellate Court with directions that it be reinstated in the file of pending suits and be disposed of on the merits. The costs here and hitherto will abide the event.