Judgment : This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam returning the grounds of appeal for presentation in proper court on the ground that no appeal will lie against the judgment passed by the District Munsif, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.3372 of 1979 on the ground that the suit is of a small cause nature. 2. The plaintiff’s case is as follows: The defendant for valid consideration received on 1.9.1973, executed a promissory note for Rs.1,500 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant has not paid the amount. The suit has been filed after the moratorium period between 16.1.1975 and 13.6.1979 was over. 3. The defendant in her written statement contends as follows: The defendant neither received any consideration nor executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. There is no necessity for her to borrow since she has got valuable properties. The suit has been filed at the instance of the defendant’s husband since she was not agreeable to execute a settlement deed in respect of her properties in his favour. The suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif framed two issues viz., whether the suit promissory note is true and to what relief the plaintiff is entitled and.after,trial, has dismissed the suit holding that the suit promissory note could not have been executed in the circumstances as alleged by the plaintiff. 5. Aggrieved over the said judgment, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal to the learned Sub Judge, Vridhachalam. The learned Sub Judge, Vridhachalam who had raised three points for consideration, has given a finding on point No.1 as to whether the appeal is maintainable and gave a finding that the appeal is not maintainable since the suit claim is less than Rs.3,000 and it is of small cause nature and returned the grounds of appeal for presentation in proper court. The learned Sub. Judge has not given any finding on the points whether the suit promissory note is true and valid and whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief, on account of his returning the grounds of appeal. 6. Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Sub Judge, returning the appeal grounds, this civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 7. 6. Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Sub Judge, returning the appeal grounds, this civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 7. The learned Sub Judge in his judgment has returned the grounds of appeal holding that the suit claim is less than Rs.3,000 and as per Sec.96(4) of the amended Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal would lie. Sec.96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: “No appeal shall lie, except that a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount of value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees:” The learned Sub Judge has returned the grounds of appeal on the ground that the suit claim is less than Rs.3,000, Except that ground, no other ground is stated by the learned Sub Judge in his order for returning the appeal grounds. The learned Sub Judge has not considered the section in its entirety. The section reads that no appeal shall lie except on a question of law from a decree... It shows that an appeal shall lie if there is a question of law involved in the suit even the suit is in the nature cognizable by Court of Small Causes on account of the claim made in the suit viz., the subject-matter of the suit being less than Rs.3,000. 8. In the decision reported in Indian Bank, Thiruvannamalai v. Balasubramania Gurukkal, (1982)2 M.L.J. 238 , it has been held by our High Court that when the question whether nationalised bank is obliged to charge interest at specific rates in accordance with the circulars and directions periodically issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, can be taken out of the category of cases where the pre-sumption regarding excessive nature of interest under the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act can be raised is a question of law and on such a question of law, the appeal is entitled to be entertained under Sec.96(4) of Code of Civil Procedure. The ratio of the above decision is to the effect that where any question of law is involved, an appeal shall lie even if the suit is of the category of Small Cause nature on account of the quantum for which the suit claim is made. The ratio of the above decision is to the effect that where any question of law is involved, an appeal shall lie even if the suit is of the category of Small Cause nature on account of the quantum for which the suit claim is made. In the present case, one of the contentions taken before the trial court by the defendant who had disputed execution of the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, is that the plaintiff has no wherewithal or capacity to advance a sum of Rs.1,500 to her on the date of the alleged execution of the promissory note. The learned District Munsif has also accepted the contention of the defendant with regard to the means of the plaintiff to lend such an amount. But, in the written statement, it is not pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff has no wherewithal to advance Rs. 1,500 to her. The learned District Munsif was conscious of the fact that the defendant has not raised any question with regard to the means of the plaintiff to lend such a huge amount is seen from his judgment itself. Yet. the learned District Munsif has held that the defendant would not have borrowed such a huge amount from the plaintiff. In other words, the learned District Munsif has accepted a version put forward by the defendant in her evidence for which there is no pleading viz., the plaintiff has no means to advance Rs. 1,500 on a promissory note. It is a recognised principle of law that no evidence can be let in on any matter for which there is no pleading at all. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would therefore argue that there is question of law involved in the appeal viz., whether the District Munsif can consider the stand taken by the defendant at the time of trial that there is no means to the plaintiff to advance Rs. 1,500 to the defendant on a promissory note without a pleading for the same and therefore under Sec.96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is entitled to file the appeal. 1,500 to the defendant on a promissory note without a pleading for the same and therefore under Sec.96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is entitled to file the appeal. The said argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is to be accepted since the judgment of the learned District Munsif itself shows that the learned District Munsif who was conscious of the fact that there is no pleading made by the defendant with regard to the means of the plaintiff, has considered the version of the defendant during trial that the plaintiff has no means and it has been found against the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of opinion that the order returning the grounds of appeal passed by the learned Sub Judge, Vridhachalam is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The learned Sub Judge, Vridhachalam is directed to take the appeal on his file and decide the same on merits after hearing both sides. Time for presentation of the grounds of appeal to the appellate court by the appellant is two months. No costs.