JUDGMENT

Chaudhuri, J. - This is a suit on an unregistered instalment bond executed by the defendant on the 6th November 1908. It is for a sum of Rs. 10,000 payable in annual instalments of Rs. 400, commencing from the 3Cth September 1909 (not 1899 as appears by mistake in the bond), it being agreed between the parties that in case of default of payment of the instalments, there was to be "immediate payment of the sum of Rs. 10,000, or the unpaid part thereof or the unpaid instalment with interest from the date of default." After reciting the agreement aforesaid, the third Clause of the bond runs thus: "in case the said yearly payments of principal shall from any cause whatever not be paid upon the day hereinbefore mentioned for such payment, the said Rawatmull, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns shall forthwith pay to Golab Roy, Bhuramull and Ghanesham Dass, their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns the whole balance then remaining unpaid of the said sum of Rs. 10,000 or at the option of the said Golab Roy, Bhuramull and Ghanesham Dass, their heirs, executor, administrators or assigns the unpaid instalment with interest thereof at the rate of nine annas per cent, per annum."

2. The plaintiff states in the third paragraph of the plaint that "the defendant failed and neglected to nay any of the said instalments. The plaintiff firm did not claim with the knowledge and consent of the defendant the whole of the said sum of Rs. 10,000 on failure to pay the first and second instalments in respect thereof, and they submit that they are entitled to recover the said sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest thereon at the rate aforesaid on the failure on the part of the defendant to pay the third instalment in respect thereof under this bond."

3. The defendant in his written statement denies the agreement, and says that he signed the bond under mental and bodily distress and under the coercion or influence of the plaintiff firm without understanding its purport or contents. "In answer to the third paragraph of the plaint, the defendant denies that he consented that the plaintiff firm should not claim the whole of the sum of Rs. 10,000 on his failure to pay the first and second instalments." He alleges that no demand was ever made from him and submits that under the circumstances, the plaintiff's claim should be held barred by the Statute of Limitations. The only issue raised by him at the hearing was as regards limitation, the suit being filed on 12th November 1913 after the re-opening of the Court after the long vacation. It was argued on his behalf that under Article 75, Schedule I, of the Limitation Act, the period of three years ran from the date of the first default, namely, the 30th September 1909. It was argued that this was not a case of waiver at all as no payment of any overdue instalment had been alleged, and that according to the rulings of this Court in Hurri Pershad Chowdhry v. Nasib Singh 21 C. 542 and Jadab Chandra Bakshi v. Bhairab Chandra Chuckerbutty 31 C. 297 amongst others, there could be no waiver so as to affect limitation save by payment and acceptance of an overdue instalment. A large number of other cases was referred to. It is only necessary to refer to some of them. Mon Mohun Roy v. Durga Churn Gooee 15 C. 502 sums up the current of decisions up to that date. Wilson, J., in discussing the case of Cheni Bash Shaha v. Kadum Mundul 5 C. 97 : 4 Ind. Jur. 517 held "it was unnecessary and unprofitable to enquire how he might decide a question of the kind if it were a new question, as it was a question which had arisen many times in the course of a number of years; that it was all-important in a matter of this kind that the current of decisions should be uniform and consistent and should be strictly adhered to." Then he discussed various cases and held that under Article 179 of the old Limitation Act, limitation ran from the time when default in payment of the first instalment was made, in consequence of wh