JUDGMENT : Rafiq, J. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit in the court of the Munsif of Hamirpur, for the recovery of Rs. 24-9-6 principal and interest on the basis of a hypothecation bond, dated the 16th of January, 1911. He did not produce the original deed and\ accounted for its non-production by stating that it had been lost. The defendant-respondent resisted the suit. He urged in defence that the suit could not be brought on a copy which he denied. He further stated that there was a statement of account between the parties on the 27th of September, 1911 and Rs. 232-12-0 were found due and that he paid Rs. 200 on account, which payment was endorsed on the back of the document. The learned Munsif framed two issues, one relating to the alleged loss of the document and the other as to the alleged payment of Rs. 200 on it. He came to the conclusion that the document had been lost and that the plea of payment advanced by the defendant-respondent had not been made out. The claim was accordingly decreed. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge of Banda disagreed with the first court as to the proof of the loss of the deed and held that the claim could not be maintained on a copy. He, however, decreed the claim for Rs. 32-12, the amount admitted by the defendant-respondent to be due. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court. He contends that looking to the pleadings in the case it was not necessary for him to prove the loss of the original. He says that as there was no denial of the original bond, but on the contrary an admission of it in the written statement, the only question between the parties on the pleadings in the case was whether anything had been paid towards it. Under the circumstances, the non-production of the original need not be accounted for and the suit on a copy is maintainable. In support of this contention the learned Vakil for the appellant relies on the case of Chuni Kuar v. Udai Ram, [1883] I.L.R., 6 All., 73. In that case the plaintiff sued on a copy alleging that the original had been lost. In support of this contention the learned Vakil for the appellant relies on the case of Chuni Kuar v. Udai Ram, [1883] I.L.R., 6 All., 73. In that case the plaintiff sued on a copy alleging that the original had been lost. The defendant pleaded that the original had been returned to him after payment and was in the possession of his Mukhtar's widow, who refused to give it up having colluded with the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove the alleged loss of the original. The defendant also did not make out, to the satisfaction of the court, the allegation of the discharge and return of the bond to him. The court held that in the state of pleadings, the only question between the parties was whether the bond had been discharged. The learned Munsif, finding that the payment alleged by the defendant had not been proved, decreed the claim. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree of the first court on the ground that the plaintiff should have, in the first instance, proved the loss of the original before the defendant could be called upon to prove payment. In appeal, a Division Bench of this Court held that the view taken by the Munsif, was correct. The fads of that case are similar to those of the present one, with the exception that in the former case the defendant had alleged the return of the bond to him. It is true that, in the present case the defendant-respondent has not in his written statement said in so many words that he had executed the bond in suit. But his plea of payment of Rs. 200 and the endorsement of that payment on the back of the bond amount to an admission that he had executed the bond. In view of that admission the only question between the parties is one of part-payment. The plaintiff, I think, can maintain the suit on a copy of the original bond without having to prove the alleged loss. For the respondent, reliance is placed on the case of Sri Ram v. Ram Lal, [1913] 11 A.L.J.R., 255. That case is distinguishable from the present one. The defendants in that case were not the original executants of the bond. For the respondent, reliance is placed on the case of Sri Ram v. Ram Lal, [1913] 11 A.L.J.R., 255. That case is distinguishable from the present one. The defendants in that case were not the original executants of the bond. They had entered into possession of the property mortgaged in the bond on payment of the Government revenue, on the default of the original owners. The pleas in defence were the denial of the bond and in the alternative its discharge. The contesting defendants said that they had heard in the village that the bond in suit had been paid off. On the pleas of the defendants in that case it was held that the principle laid down in Chuni Kuar v. Uday Ram, [1883] I.L.R., 6 All., 73, did not apply as there was no admission by the defendants of the original bond. The points of difference between the two cases are clearly given at length at page 259 of A.L.J.R., Vol. XI. The lower appellate court was, therefore, in error in holding that the plaintiff-appellant could not maintain the suit on a copy of the original bond, because he failed to prove the alleged loss. The question of loss will have to be considered when the evidence with regard to the alleged payment is discussed. The inability to prove the loss of the original will be a circumstance against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant-respondent as to the alleged payment on the bond. I, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to it for disposal on the merits according to law. Costs will abide the event.