THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5666 OF 2006 O R D E R: The revision is filed against the Judgment in Small Causes Suit No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The plaintiff in the above suit is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The suit was one filed for recovery of Rs.4,267/- being the amount due on a promissory note dated 20.09.1998 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,500/- and a part payment of Rs.100/- is said to have been made on 15.09.2001 and as the balance amount was not paid the suit was filed. The defendant has filed a written statement admitting the execution of the promissory note and also the part payment and pleading that there are two other small cause suits, where-under the father of the plaintiff and the brother of the plaintiff also filed the suits. Some material was said to have been supplied to the defendant and towards that consideration a promissory note was executed on 20.08.1996 and some payments were made and therefore, the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. 3. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge took into consideration the evidence of the plaintiff and also DWs.1 and 2 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the present revision is filed. 5. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? 6. POINTS: Admittedly, the execution of the promissory note Ex.A.1 is not denied and so also the part payment consideration under Ex.A.2. The only claim of the defendant in the written statement and in his evidence is no consideration was paid under Ex.A.1 promissory note. Relying on the evidence of PW.1 that the plaintiff did not pay the amount and his father paid the amount, the suit was dismissed. It is to be noted that the promissory note is supported by consideration, and the consideration need not be cash consideration and it can be any consideration, which is valid and enforceable. Even as per the evidence of the defendant and the written statement, the father of the plaintiff and his brother were said to have supplied some stones and sand and towards that transaction some amount is payable and consequently after payment of some amount three promissory notes were executed, one in favour of the plaintiff, another in favour of the father of the plaintiff and one more in favour of brother of the plaintiff. Therefore, from the material evidence on record, it is quite clear that the suit promissory note is supported by valid consideration and that is towards the value of some goods supplied by the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, merely because cash consideration was not paid under Ex.A.1, it does not mean that the suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration. The evidence of the defendant and also the allegations in the written statement clearly go to show that the suit promissory note is supported by valid and enforceable consideration. There is no proof of discharge of the debt towards the suit promissory note except the part payment under Ex.A.2. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit by the learned Senior Civil Judge is not proper. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Judgment of the lower Court is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,600/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promissory note till the date of decree after deducting the part payment of Rs.100/- made on 15.09.2001 at the same rate of interest, with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The plaintiff will be entitled for the costs through out proportionately. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:15-09-2011. INL