JUDGMENT Sulaiman, J.
1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing a suit based on a promissory note. The promissory note was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, but the Court below has come to the conclusion that although the defendants received consideration, they did so not from the plaintiff, but from Bisheshar Nath, and has held that the suit is premature, because the defendants state that settlement will be made between them when their accounts are settled.
2. It is clear that the learned Judge has not dismissed the suit on the ground that a benamidar could not sue in place of the true owner if the promissory note stood in his name. Such a ground would not be tenable. The dismissal is based on the supposition that the claim is premature. It seems to us that a claim based on a promissory note payable on demand must be decreed, and the defendants cannot resist the claim by saying that the amount would be given credit for in the final settlement of accounts between the parties: vide Shri Ram v. Sobha Ram A.I.R. 1922 All. 213.
3. The learned advocate for the applicants concedes that the amount of the decree when realised may remain in Court to the credit of Bisheshar Nath, on whose behalf the plaintiff firm has sued. On this undertaking we allow the application, and setting aside the decree of the Court below, decree the claim. But we direct that the parties should bear their own costs in both Courts.