TULSI RAM Vs. SAME SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood prior to its amendment by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. The solitary, question for decision is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is within time. The appellant executed a pronote for Rs. 1300.00 on 5th January 1963 in favour of the respondent and promised to pay the amount with interest at 15 per Mensem on demand. The amount was not paid. The plaintiff also did not file the suit within three years from the date of the pronote. On 10th July, 1966 the defendant made the following endorsement on the back of the pronote itself:

(2.) Section 25 of the Act is as under

(3.) The plaintiff claims that his case is covered by Clause (3) of Section 25 of the Act. This clause requires that there should be promise in writing, that it should be signed by the debtor or his agent and that this promise should be to pay wholly or in part a debt barred by time. If these conditions are fulfilled an agreement made without consideration amounts to a contract.