Short Note : 1. The applicant Narendra Kumar bad based his claim on a Hundi alleged to have been executed by the non-applicant for a sum of Rs. 175. It was alleged that the non-applicant took a sum of Rs. 175 on Dwitiya Bhadav Badi 2, Samvat 2031 corresponding to the date 3-9-74 and agreed to repay the same on Kunwar Sudi 2, Samvat 2031 corresponding to 17-10-74. It was further alleged that while taking the said loan the non-applicant had also agreed to pay interest on the amount of loan at the rate of Rs. 1.50 p. per cent per month. As the non-applicant did not repay the amount in spite of a notice of demand having been served on him the suit was filed for the principal amount of Rs. 175 together with interest amounting to Rs. 11 and notice charges Rs. 10. 2. The non-applicant in his written statement denied to have taken any loan from the applicant. He further pleaded that the applicant is the son of Shri Kanakmal Sundecha, Advocate, whom he had engaged in two cases. It was further alleged that Shri Sundecha, Advocate, get the Hundi executed in favour of his son for the amount of fees. It was also averted that the non-applicant had already given a reply to the demand notice of the applicant. The non-appellant, therefore, denied the applicant's claim in toto. 3. In the trial Court the applicant and the non-applicant examined themselves and closed their case. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record came to the finding that the non-applicant was made to execute the Hundi in favour of the applicant for the pleader's fee which the applicant's father had demanded from him. It was also held that applicant's father having been engaged by the non-applicant to plead his causes, he got the Hundi executed under undue influence. Therefore, the applicant's suit was dismissed with cost. Held : The first contention of, the learned counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant having not taken the plea of undue influence, the trial Court was not justified in recording a finding to that effect. It is true that no specific plea of undue influence was taken by the non-applicant, who is an illiterate person and who has filed the written statement without any legal assistance. It is true that no specific plea of undue influence was taken by the non-applicant, who is an illiterate person and who has filed the written statement without any legal assistance. It may, however, be noted that the non-applicant had given reply to the applicant's notice which is at Ex. D-2. In that notice the non-applicant had clearly stated that he did not own any money to the applicant. In that reply it was also stated that the Hundi was got executed from him for the total fee of Rs. 175 for appearing in two cases, but no appearance was made by the advocate and that the Hundi was wrongly got executed from him. The non-applicant in the cross-examination has stated that Shri Kanakmal, Advocate, the father of the applicant had told him that an appeal had to be filed in his case, but ultimately no appeal was filed and still the Hundi was got executed from him without making any payment. The applicant's father, Shri Kanakmal Sundecha, who is an Advocate and who appeared in the trial Court to plead for the applicant had not appealed in the witness box to say that be had worked as a lawyer to plead the cause of the non-applicant and that the amount of Rs. 175 was legally recoverable from the non-applicant. 4. The manner in which the non-applicant had signed the Hundi Ex. D-1 would clearly show that he is an illiterate person. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the trial Court rightly held that no consideration passed to the non-applicant for the execution of the Hundi Ex. D-1 in favour of the applicant. The fact that any money was due to be paid by the non-applicant to the applicant's father for his legal fees has not been proved. Under these circumstances, even if it were to be held that the trial Court erred in coming to the finding as regards undue influence without a specific pleading of the non-applicant, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction should not interfere in the decree of the trial Court when it can be supported on some other ground as well. I, therefore, hold that no consideration had passed for the execution of the document Ex D-1 and hence the applicant was not entitled to recover any money of the basis of the laid document from the non-applicant. I, therefore, hold that no consideration had passed for the execution of the document Ex D-1 and hence the applicant was not entitled to recover any money of the basis of the laid document from the non-applicant. 1962 JLJ 764 and AIR 1951 SC 177 , distinguished. Revision dismissed.