ORDER : This small cause revision is preferred by the applicant-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 431-5-6. His suit was dismissed by the Judge Small Cause Court on the ground that the suit was founded on a promissory note and as it was not stamped it was inadmissible in evidence. 2. The short facts are that the defendant had dealings in silver with the plaintiff and on the foot of account Rs. 401/- were due from the defendant to the plaintiff on 3-11-1946. The same day the defendant executed a chithi in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 401/-. As the defendant failed to pay, the plaintiff filed suit on the basis of chithi. According to the plaintiff the chithi is an agreement to pay. 3. The defendant denied having any dealing in silver with plaintiff. He contended that the plaintiff got the chithi executed through fraud. He also contended that the chithi is inadmissible in evidence. 4. The Judge Small Cause Court held that the plaintiff had practised no fraud in getting the chithi for Rs. 401/-, executed by defendant. However he held that the note in suit is a promissory note and as it is not stamped it is inadmissible in evidence and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 5. The main point for determination in this revision application is whether the chithi in suit is a pro-note or a mere agreement to pay. 6. The question whether an instrument is a promissory note or not should be judged by the words used. 7. A promissory note as defined by Indore Stamp Act of 1907 mean an instrument in writing (not being a bank note or currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to or to the order, of a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument. 8. It also includes a note promising the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen. Hence judged in the light of this definition the document in suit amounts to a promissory note. The document in question contains an agreement for the payment of money. It amounts to an undertaking or promise. The undertaking is unconditional. The agreement is for payment of money and money only. Hence judged in the light of this definition the document in suit amounts to a promissory note. The document in question contains an agreement for the payment of money. It amounts to an undertaking or promise. The undertaking is unconditional. The agreement is for payment of money and money only. The sum payable is certain. The instrument is signed by the maker of the instrument. The money is payable to or to the order of a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument. 9. Mr. Khabya pleader for the applicant contended that in the document in suit, there are no words showing negotiability. As the instrument is not negotiable, it is taken out of the range of promissory note and it is merely an agreement. 10. It has to be noted that the Indore Stamp Act was passed in 1907. It defines promissory note in S. 2(19). The Indore Negotiable Instruments Act was enacted in 1926. Therefore, a promissory note under the Indore Stamp Act does not mean a pro-note falling as defined in Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the provisions of Indore Stamp Act, the question of negotiability does not arise. Here in this instrument certain person to whom the money is made payable is mentioned Bhai Chandulal Kanugo and it clearly states that Rs. 401/- are to be paid to Chandulal Kanugo. Here the definite person to whom the sum certain is to be paid is mentioned. This document before me contains an express promise to pay certain sum of money. In the Privy Council Case 'Mahomad Akbar v. Attarsing', AIR (23) 1936 PC 171, the document alleged to be promissory note contained the following words : "This (one) receipt is hereby executed by H and A resident of Hoti for Rs. 48,000, half of which amount comes to Rs. 21,950/- received from the firm of L, for and on behalf of M of Hoti. This amount to be payable after two years. Interests at the rate of Rs. 5-4-0 P. C. P. Y. to be charged, dated 1st April, 1917". 11. The document, as it is worded, it is doubtful whether it can properly be styled as a promissory note since it does not contain an express undertaking to pay, but merely an undertaking which has to be inferred from the words used. 5-4-0 P. C. P. Y. to be charged, dated 1st April, 1917". 11. The document, as it is worded, it is doubtful whether it can properly be styled as a promissory note since it does not contain an express undertaking to pay, but merely an undertaking which has to be inferred from the words used. In the document before me there are words indicating definite promise to pay. Hence the document in suit is a pro-note as defined by the Indore Stamp Act. Here there is no implied promise as in 'Mohammad Akbar's case' AIR (23) 1936 PC 171 but an express promise to pay (sic). The dominant object of the note is to embody such promise and not the acknowledgment. 12. In the case before me an account is closed and a certain sum is found due by one party to another and if the amount is not paid immediately, it is often the practice for the debtor to give the creditor an instrument referring to the account and containing an undertaking to pay the sum found due with interest. Hence it is a promissory note pure and simple. Now the question arises whether the plaintiff should be allowed to fall back on original consideration in view of the fact that, the pro-note in suit is inadmissible in evidence as it is not stamped. 13. On the question it is well settled that where there is pre-existing debt or liability and a promissory note is passed in respect of it, the plaintiff can fall back on the original consideration. Where a cause of action for money is once complete in itself, whether for goods sold or money lent or for any other claim, and the debtor then gives a pro-note to the creditor for the payment of money at a future time, the creditor, may, if the money is not paid on the maturity of pro-note fall back on the original consideration. 14. It was stated that the trial Court gave option to the plaintiff to amend the plaint but the plaintiff was in a confused state of mind because he did not know then that the Court is going to hold the document as a pro-note, hence he did not at that time amend the plaint. 14. It was stated that the trial Court gave option to the plaintiff to amend the plaint but the plaintiff was in a confused state of mind because he did not know then that the Court is going to hold the document as a pro-note, hence he did not at that time amend the plaint. Now that the Court has held that the document is a pro-note, he should be allowed to amend his plaint so as to sue for original consideration. 15. I, therefore allow the revision and set aside the decree of the lower Court and remand the case to the lower Court for being retired on merits. Costs in the cause. Case remanded.