Period required to be excluded under the provisions of debt laws to be treated as prescribed period.

This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A.S.No.20 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment in O.S.No. 1322 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Panrutti.

2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the suit on the foot of a pronote against the revision petitioner. He resisted it on the ground that there was partial failure of consideration that there was partial discharge that the endorsement was not true that defendant is entitled to the benefits of Debt Relief Acts and that the suit claim was barred by time. After trial, the learned District Munsif had rejected all the objections raised by the defendant and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed appeal in A.S.No.20 of 1987 and having failed there, has come forward with this revision petition.

3. Mr.V.Narayanaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the plaintiff relied upon the endorsement Ex.A-2, dated 111. 1979 that the said endorsement was not accepted by the defendant and the courts below were wrong in accepting Ex.A-2. He would further submit that the endorsement in Ex.A-2 was payment of Rs.50 towards interest and that would not amount to an acknowledgement under Sec. 18 of Limitation Act. He would further submit that the date of pronote was 14. 1975, date of part payment and endorsement therefor was dated 111. 1979 which falls outside the period of three years and as such Ex.A-2 cannot save limitation. He would further submit that though Ex.A-2 was during the period of moratorium, after the new Limitation Act came into force, only if acknowledgement was made within the period of three years, that can be taken into account and any acknowledgement made beyond the period of three years would not save limitation. I have heard Mr.S.Venkateswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. I shall first advert to the genuineness of Ex.A-2. Regarding Ex.A-2. The stand taken in the written statement in para.6 reads as follows:

"The endorsement is not true. It was misrepresented by the plaintiff as that he was getting the defendant’s signature for the purpose of discharging the promissory note.

This defendant is an innocent and illiterate except he knows to write his name and old age."

There is no plea that there was no endorsement whatsoever and his signature alone was taken. The stand taken was that the endorsement is not true and if it is taken along with other portion of para.6, it would mean that the contents of endorsement are not true. While so, the submission of Mr.V.Narayanaswamy that P.W.2, the scribe has admitted that while he made the endorsement, the signature was already there and so it must be taken that mere signature was obtained and later endorsement was taken, cannot be accepted. Mr.Narayanaswamy pointed out that there is some space left in between the endorsement and signature of the defendant in Ex.A-2 and thus there is intrinsic evidence to show that the signature must have been obtained earlier and endorsement must have been prepared later. But in the absence of any such specific plea in the written statement, I am unable to accept this submission. The person who wrote the endorsement figured as P.W.2 and has testified it. The finding of the courts below do not appear to be incorrect.

5. I shall next pass on to the submission of Mr.Narayanaswamy that even assuming Ex.A-2 is correct, the endorsement in it was only for payment of Rs.5 towards interest and that would not amount to an acknowledgement. In this regard, he relied upon the ruling reported in Kalavagunta Narasinga Rao Gam v. Veupolapati Rangayya, (1942)2 M.L.J. 610.A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 133:55 L.W. 808:1942 M.W.N. 685: 205 I.C. 546. In that case, the suit was laid on the foot of a promissory note with two endorsements. The endorsements merely state that s