HANUMAN Vs. FATTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision application against an order of the appellate court holding that the suit document is not a promissory note. The document runs as follows:

(2.) IN the above case the language of the promissory note runs as follows:

(3.) THE above case is distinguishable. In the present case it is clearly stated by the executant that he shall pay the amount to the original payer on demand or shall pay to the endorsee on the demand of the latter. In both cases the words "on demand" have the same technical meaning, viz. , payable immediately or forthwith. Further it is stated in the promissory note that payment will be made at the place of business. That obviously means the place of business of the original payer or the endorsee. It cannot mean the place of business of the maker of the promissory note. Now if it were contemplated that the original payer or the endorsee will make a demand then the demand could only be made at the house or place of business of the maker, That was not under the contemplation of the parties. It cannot be said, therefore, in the present case, that it was necessary to make an actual demand before the promissory note was payable after the period fixed for payment therein. The suit document is, therefore, clearly a promissory note payable 3 1/2 months after the date of execution i. e. , payable otherwise than on demand.