JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---Plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of its suit wherein it had prayed for a decree for Rs. 83,329.75. 2. Plaintiff is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, apart from functioning as a Bank. Defendant No.2 is the proprietor of a concern doing business in the name and style of defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 was appointed as an agent of a concern doing business in the name and style of M/s. Kela Co. Private Ltd. Bombay, to sell its liquid paraffin products at Pune. In order to be in a position to do so defendant No. 2 suggested a scheme. This scheme entailed advance of money by the plaintiff to defendant No.2 on the basis of bills to be realised by them from their customers. There was to be an interval of 30 to 45 days between the supply of goods and the receipt of the price there of from the customers and to tide over the requirements of defendant No.2 during this period, plaintiff was to advance various sums. To secure the plaintiff, defendant No.2 would pass Hundies as also copies of the bills submitted to the customers. On the customers paying their dues, there would be a repayment of the sums borrowed together with interest thereon by defendant No.2. On the basis of such a scheme, defendants drew a total sum of Sum of Rs.96,000/- from April 1979 onwards. Four Hundies were drawn upon the plaintiff -Bank by defendant No.2 Defendant No.2 sold the goods to a firm doing business in the name and style of defendant No.3 of which defendant No.4 is said to be one of the partners. Defendant No.2 repaid a sum of Rs.24,101/- before the institution of the suit. The balance together with the interest, notice costs and incidental expenses came to Rs. 83,329,75, and, it was that sum along with costs and interest which was sought to be recovered in the suit brought against defendant No.1 to 4 Defendant Nos.3 and 4 appear to have been impleaded subsequently on a contention taken by defendant No.2 that defendant Nos.3 and 4 were necessary parties to the suit. The claim was contested by defendant Nos.1 and 2 through their written statement which is at Exh. 13. The claim was contested by defendant Nos.1 and 2 through their written statement which is at Exh. 13. The pleas raised in the written statement did not include one questioning the entitlement of the plaintiff to sue on the foot of the Hundies. The only witness examined at the trial was Bodhe, an accountant of the plaintiff Bank. He proved the execution of the different documents including the Hundies and, generally speaking, testified in conformity with the recitals appearing in the plaint. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defendants, but without his being shaken in any material particular. Defendants did not examine any witness. The documents described as Hundies went in unchallenged vis-a-vis their admissibility. In other words, no contention was raised about the documents being insufficiently stamped and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. The learned trial Judge held that the Hundies being insufficiently stamped were not admissible in evidence and that as the suit was based upon the said Hundies, plaintiff's suit was not maintainable in law. He, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. 3. Plaintiff in appeal questions the correctness of the verdict impugned in appeal. In support of the contention that the Hundies' admissibility could not be questioned at the stage of delivery of judgment, Mr. Sali, learned Counsel representing the plaintiff-Bank, relies upon section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. This section says : "Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped." Section 61 deals with revision of certain decisions of Courts regarding sufficiency of stamps. The purpose behind section 61 is to provide for adjudication of disputes relating to revenue from stamps payable under the enactment. It cannot be disputed that the Hundies were insufficiently stamped and could not be validated having regard to the first proviso to section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899. The purpose behind section 61 is to provide for adjudication of disputes relating to revenue from stamps payable under the enactment. It cannot be disputed that the Hundies were insufficiently stamped and could not be validated having regard to the first proviso to section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899. Even so, once the Hundies had gone into the evidence, in the sense that no objection had been raised to their admissibility either in the written statement or at the stage of recording of deposition of plaintiff's witness Bodhe, the learned trial Judge was disabled by virtue of section 36 of back-track and go into the admissibility at the stage of delivering judgment. 4. Apart from section 36 of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Mr. Sali contends that the suit was based not only upon the Hundies, as was supposed to be the case by the trial Court, but the original consideration as also the bills drawn upon the customers were also very much a base of the suit for recovery of the sum advanced to defendant No.2 plus, of course, the interest thereon. That the original consideration could be taken recourse to in the case of a bill of exchange insufficiently stamped is well settled. One of the decisions upholding such a view is (Radhakisan v. Jayantilal)1, reported in 1980 Maharashtra Law Journal 120. In that suit plaintiff sought recovery of amount covered by a pro-note, which pro-note was insufficiently stamped. It was held that the mere execution of the pro-note would not mean that the transaction of loan had merged into that of a pro-note. The person advancing it could fall back upon the original us and accepting the ratio, we hold that assuming that the inadequacy of the stamp vis-a-vis the Hundies came in the way of plaintiff claiming upon it, it was yet open to the plaintiff to fall back upon the original consideration and solicit a decree against defendant No.2 In so far as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff-Bank and them. No decree can also be passed against defendant No.1 which is not a person in the eyes of law, being a mere signboard under which defendant No.2 is doing business. 5. 3 and 4 are concerned, there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff-Bank and them. No decree can also be passed against defendant No.1 which is not a person in the eyes of law, being a mere signboard under which defendant No.2 is doing business. 5. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the dismissal of the suit will have to be set aside and hence the order : (a) Appeal allowed. Defendant No.2 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 83,329.75 minus the sums paid pendente-lite but together with costs in both the courts. The principal amount i.e. the principal payable under the three Hundies or the original consideration, shall carry interest at rate 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. (b) Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 discharged from liability with no order as to their costs. (c) Defendant No.2 shall bear his costs, if any, throughout. Appeal allowed. -----