( 1 ) THE question that falls for determination in this revision petition is whether a statement made by a witness in the court admitting a time-barred debt fulfils the requirements of Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act. The relevant facts to appreciate the arguments may briefly be stated. The petitioner herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 200. 00from the plaintiff-respondent and Executed a promissory note in his favour on 16-7-1951 agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. On 15-6-1954 he paid a sum of Rs. 5. 00 and made an endorsement on the pronote. There were no subsequent payments and the claim became time-barred. On 18-8-1958 he was examined as a witness in the case in which the respondent herein was the 1st defendant (O. S. No. 30 of 1958 ). During the course of cross-examination he stated as under: "i executed a pronote for Rs. 200. 00 in favour of the 1st defendant and I am prepared to pay off the debt even now. " On that basis, the respondent issued notices and thereafter filed a suit for the recovery of the amount to the tune of Rs. 277-154. The petitioner contended that the pronote was without consideration and that the claim had become time-barre