JUDGMENT : - Defendant is the appellant. He challenges the judgment and decree in O.S. 76 of 1979 of the Sub Court, Trivandrum. Plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 12,154/- with 12% interest from the defendant. Plaintiff contended that defendant had borrowed Rupees 12,154/ - from him on 18-1-1977 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands defendant did not care to return the amount. 2. Defendant filed written statement denying the transaction and contending that there was no necessity for him to obtain a loan from the plaintiff, a labourer. The execution of the promissory note is denied by him. 3. The promissory note produced along with the plaint was found not admissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped. The suit was decreed on the original cause of action. 4. There are sufficient averments in the plaint that the suit is based on original cause of action. As the promissory note was executed by the defendant only in acknowledgement of the loan he had obtained from the plaintiff, the Court cannot reject the claim in the suit solely on the ground that the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence. In paragraph 1 of the plaint it is stated that the defendant received the amount as loan and the promissory note was executed only as a document in support of the loan. P.W. 1's evidence shows that the defendant obtained the amount from the plaintiff and only at the time when they parted the promissory note was executed. The note was executed after the defendant obtained the loan. As the note was executed by the defendant only in acknowledgement of the loan, it is apparent that the loan was anterior to and independent of the execution of the promissory note. In a case where a promissory note was executed by the defendant only in acknowledgement of the loan he had already obtained from the plaintiff; the suit for recovery of the debt based on the original cause of action cannot be dismissed on the ground that the promissory note is defective and inadmissible in evidence. 5. In a case where a promissory note was executed by the defendant only in acknowledgement of the loan he had already obtained from the plaintiff; the suit for recovery of the debt based on the original cause of action cannot be dismissed on the ground that the promissory note is defective and inadmissible in evidence. 5. As observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Saffia Khathoon v. Kunhambu 1977 Ker LT 448 the legal position is well established that in such circumstances the creditor is entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of the debt based on the original contract of loan in case the promissory note is found to be defective in any respect. Hence the contention of the defendant that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the promissory note was found defective cannot be sustained. 6. In view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, promissory note which is not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence. But the creditor who has advanced the loan is not precluded from pursuing his ordinary legal remedy of enforcing repayment by a suit based on the original cause of action. In the Division Bench decision this Court held that it has always to be remembered that the Stamp Act has been enacted only as a fiscal measure to secure revenue for the State and its provisions are not intended to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to deny his obligation under a contract and defeat the just claims of an opponent. 7. In view of the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to claim the amount due to him on the transaction proved in the case and which is independent of the execution of the promissory note. 7. In view of the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to claim the amount due to him on the transaction proved in the case and which is independent of the execution of the promissory note. In this context, it is also useful to refer to a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in L. Sambasiva Rao v. T. Balakotiah AIR 1973 Andh Pra 342 (FB) where the Court held thus : "A plaintiff can lay an action for recovery of the amount advanced by him basing on the original cause of action where the suit negotiable instrument becomes inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act provided there is an allegation in the plaint and proof in evidence about the fact that the promissory note did not incorporate all the terms of the contract of loan and that it was executed as a conditional payment or a collateral security. " As the suit was filed on the strength of the original contract, contention of the defendant that the inadmissibility of the promissory note sounds the death-knell of the plaintiffs case is clearly untenable. 8. Counsel for the defendant next contended that the Sub Judge was not justified in allowing the application for amendment deleting the latter part of Issue No. 1. The application was filed on 5-3-1982. Defendant cannot succeed on that ground as well in view of the averments in the plaint for the realisation of the amount based on original cause of action. 9. Plaintiff examined as P.W. 1 stated that he paid the amount to the defendant from the shop of P.W. 2 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 2 stated that plaintiff entrusted with him Rs. 12,000 / - on the morning of 18-1-1977 and instructed him that the amount should be paid to the defendant. P.W. 2 has sworn that when he and P.W. 3 were in his shop plaintiff came with the defendant and got the amount from him and that amount together with Rs.154/- was paid to the defendant. There is nothing in cross-examination to discredit their testimony. 10. Another contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff was not having sufficient means to raise the amount to pay the defendant. Admittedly plaintiff is a head-load worker. P.W. 2 stated that head-load workers used to get Rs. 50/- to Rs. There is nothing in cross-examination to discredit their testimony. 10. Another contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff was not having sufficient means to raise the amount to pay the defendant. Admittedly plaintiff is a head-load worker. P.W. 2 stated that head-load workers used to get Rs. 50/- to Rs. 125/- per day as wages. In view of that evidence, the financial position of the plaintiff cannot be disputed. 11. Defendant contended that his initial is different from that shown in the notice. But it has to be noted that the summons was sent to the defendant with the same initials and he received the same. Moreover, the notice and summons were sent to the defendant in his official address. 12. On a consideration of the evidence, I find that the Sub Judge was justified in decreeing the suit. There is no merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.