RSA 161 of 1998. 26.9.2008 Present: Mr. Anand Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.S.Thakur, counsel for the respondent. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned District Judge reversing the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff – appellant herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,665/- with costs and future interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of suit till recovery. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the settled issues holding that the promissory note Ex.P-1 was issued for consideration which fact was supported by witnesses of the plaintiff including PW-2 Prem Chand, decreed the suit. The learned District Judge has reversed the decree in appeal holding that the presumption under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was rebutted by the defendant. The plaintiff is now in appeal. The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the lower appellate Court ignored the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein a statutory presumption as to consideration has been laid down? -2- 2. Whether under Section 118 (a), the consideration set up in the plaint being different from that set out in the document was of no consequence? Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned appellate Court is not correct in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court holding that the promissory note Ex.P-1, writing Ex.P-2 and receipt Ex.P-5 were sufficient to prove the claim of the plaintiff. He submits that merely because there is some discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses is not sufficient for rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no question of law arises for consideration and that the learned appellate Court has correctly reappreciated the evidence. I cannot agree with the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The judgment rendered by the learned District Judge does not at all consider the documentary evidence. Three documents i.e. Ex.P_-1, P-2 and P-5 being the promissory note, writing and the receipt have been proved in accordance with law. There is no evidence on -3- record to show that these writings were obtained by fraud. In fact issue No. 6 was framed by the learned trial Court on this point, but there was no evidence to establish this contention. Merely because there is some discrepancy in the evidence of the plaintiff does not lead to the conclusion that the promissory note is not issued for consideration. Irrespective of that two other documents namely receipt Ex.P-5 and the writing Ex.P-1 have not been considered. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. September 26, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.