( 1 ) THREE questions are raised in this Second Appeal, (1) whether the plea of discharge pleaded by the appellant is true; (2) whether the promissory note was executed on 3rd August, 1916, and the suit is consequently barred by limitation ; and (3) whether, by reason of the terms of the order, dated 7th november, 1950, in O. P. No. 95 of 1950 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna, at Masulipatam, having not been complied with, the trial of the suit by the Subordinate judge was without jurisdiction, and the decree is consequently liable to be set aside.

( 2 ) BOTH the Courts held against the appellant on the plea of discharge and we tee no reason to disturb this concurrent finding of fact. Sri Neti Subrahmam am, the learned counsel for the appellant, strongly contended that the promissory note was executed on 3rd September, 1946, and that the suit was consequently barred by limitation. In support of that argument, he relied upon an entry marked as Exhibit A-3 (a) in the account book Exhibit a-3. The entry was noted as 3rd August, 1946, and the figure 8 was corrected into 9. If, as Sri Subrahmanyam contends, the promissory note was duly executed on 3rd Septemb