ORDER : This is a revision by the plaintiff against the Judgment of the learned District Munsiff in S.C. S. 452/58. The suit itself was for recovering from the defendant as sum of Rs. 214-66 nP, being the principal amount and interest due under a promissory note dated 1-7-1958 executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Costs and other expenses also were claimed in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the promissory-note itself was executed in respect of the amounts due from the defendant to the plaintiff for price of beedi leaves and tobacco purchased by the defendant for purposes of his trade. The plaintiff also took up the definite stand that such a debt is exempted under S. 2 [c][vi] of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958-Kerala Act XXXI/1958. 2. It is also seen that though various contentions were raised by the defendant, the only contention that was pressed during the trial, was that the defendant is entitled to relief under the provisions of Act XXXI/1958 From this, it follows that the plaintiff’s case that the original debt represents the price due to the plaintiff from the defendant in respect of beedi leaves and tobacco purchased for purposes of trade by the defendant is not challenged by defendant. Therefore the question arises as to whether such a debt is one coming within the exception contained in S. 2 [c][vi] of the Act. The learned District Munsiff also, it must be stated, has accepted the case of the plaintiff that the suit promissory-note was executed for the balance amount due from the defendant under accounts in respect of price of beedi leaves and tobacco purchased for his manufacturing purposes. But the learned District Munsiff was not prepared to accept the contention of the plaintiff that such a debt comes under S. 2 [c][vi]. It is the further view of the learned District Munsiff that the suit itself was filed not on the original debt, but on the promissory note itself and therefore, it cannot be stated that the amount due on the promissory-note comes within the exception quoted earlier. 3. There was no controversy that otherwise the defendant was an agriculturist and could be ordinarily entitled to the benefit of Kerala Act XXXI/1958. 3. There was no controversy that otherwise the defendant was an agriculturist and could be ordinarily entitled to the benefit of Kerala Act XXXI/1958. In consequence of his “finding that it is a debt coming under the definition of that expression as contained in the Act and that the defendant will be entitled to discharge the same in instalments, the learned District Munsiff gave certain further consequential directions. Finally, the learned District Munsiff decreed the suit as claimed, but made it subject to the right of the defendant to pay the same in instalments as per the provisions of Act XXXI/1958. But the plaintiff was directed to pay the costs of the defendant. In this Civil Revision Petition on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, learned counsel, contends that the learned District Munsiff’s view as regards the nature of the debt in this case is not correct. Having accepted the plaintiff’s contention that the amount due under the promissory-note represents the price of goods purchased by the defendant for purposes of trade, the learned counsel contends that it comes within the exception provided under S. 2 [c] [vi] of the Act. Mr. Kelu Nambiar in this case also laid stress upon the different expressions used in sub-clauses 3, 4, 5 and 7 in contrast to the expression mentioned in Sub-clauses 6 and 8 in particular. The expression used in sub-clauses 3, 4, 5 and 7 is, ‘any liability’; whereas in sub-clauses 6 and 8 the expression used is, ‘any debt’. This, according to Mr. Kelu Nambiar, will clearly show that what is to be looked into in such circumstances is the original debt and not the fact that subsequently, a promissory-note has been executed by the party who owed the debt originally. 4. Mr. Kelu Nambiar also relied upon the recitals in the promissory-note itself to the effect that the amounts for which the promissory-note is executed represents the amounts due by the executant in respect of dealings with the plaintiff and that is stated to be the consideration for the execution of the promissory-note. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that in as much as the suit itself is based not upon the debt, but upon the promissory-note, the reasoning adopted by the lower Court is correct. 6. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that in as much as the suit itself is based not upon the debt, but upon the promissory-note, the reasoning adopted by the lower Court is correct. 6. I cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant in this regard. 7. I am satisfied that the contentions of Mr. Kelu Nambiar have to be accepted in the circumstances of this case. After defining the expression ‘debt’ in clause [c] of S. 2, what is taken out of this category under sub-clause [vi] is: ‘any debt’ which represents the price of goods purchased for purpose of trade. That means, in my opinion, the Act has clearly got in contemplation the original debt whatever may be the subsequent conduct as between the parties. This becomes clear when reference is made to sub-clauses 3, 4, 5 and 7 where what is exempted is ‘any liability.’ 8. Again, S. 9 of the Act also throws some light on the point in question. S. 9 gives a right to the agriculturist to prove the nature of transactions and power is given to a Court to ascertain whether the transaction is a ‘debt’. I omit the other matters referred to in the said section. Therefore, in my opinion, even though the suit may have been based on the promissory-note, it is open to the Court in order to give relief or to deny relief to an agriculturist to find out the real nature of the debt in the first instance. The decree of the learned District Munsiff holding that the defendant is entitled to pay the amount in instalments is set aside. In substitution of the Judgment now under revision, the plaintiff will have a decree for the full amount as prayed for together with costs and interest and the plaintiff will get his costs both in the trial Court as well as in this Court.