JUDGMENT Kendall, J. - This is an application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Allahabad, decreeing the Plaintiff's suit. The Plaintiff sued for the price of oil supplied to the Defendant, and the suit was contested on the ground that the amount claimed by the Plaintiff on account of oil was not correct. Both parties therefore produced evidence including their own accounts, and the Judge decided that the Plaintiff's case was proved. Part of the evidence produced on behalf of the Plaintiff consisted of two documents which the Court refers to as vouchers. It is argued in revision that these documents were promissory notes or bonds, that they were not properly stamped, and consequently that they were inadmissible in evidence, and more than that, as they themselves were not admissible in evidence, no other evidence on the subject should have been admitted by the Court u/s 91 of the Evidence Act. I have had the documents read to me and it appears to me that they were undoubtedly acknowledgments as defined in Article I of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Each of them therefore required a one-anna stamp, and the first of them which is an acknowledgment for Rs. 280-15 bears such a stamp and was rightly admitted in evidence. The second purports to be an acknowledgment for Rs. 95-15 and is not stamped at all. I agree with the counsel for the applicant that it ought not to have been admitted in evidence, at any rate without the payment of a penalty, but it has been pointed out that no objection was taken in the trial court to the admission of either of these documents, nor was it suggested at that stage, as it is now, that they were really promissory notes or bonds or some other such instrument. The Court however was not entirely or even largely influenced by this particular document, which ought not to have been admitted in evidence but accepted the Plaintiff's claim on the strength of oral evidence and accounts. 2. The further argument advanced by Counsel is that as the document which I have held to be an acknowledgment was not admissible in evidence, no other evidence to prove the indebtedness of the Defendant for this sum should have been admitted. 2. The further argument advanced by Counsel is that as the document which I have held to be an acknowledgment was not admissible in evidence, no other evidence to prove the indebtedness of the Defendant for this sum should have been admitted. It is pointed out that if the document had been a promissory note, and the promissory note had not been admissible in evidence, no oral or other evidence to prove the terms of hat contract would have been admitted in evidence. It is clear, however that there is no analogy and that if a promissory note had been executed it would have been as consideration for the sum advanced on loan, and would have furnished the best evidence of the terms of the contract, the promissory note itself being a valuable consideration for the loan. "The acknowledgment is not a valuable consideration at all but was merely executed to form evidence of the existence of the loan. The accident that it is not admissible in evidence only has the result of depriving the Plaintiff of the value of the evidence itself, but it cannot possibly deprive the Plaintiff of bringing other evidence of the existence of the loan of debt. There is therefore no force in the application and it is dismissed with costs.