This petition raises a point of negotiable instrument law, which does not appear to be covered by any definite authority in case-law. The undisputed facts before me are these. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who on 24th February, 1948, took an assignment for consideration from one Parasuramathasari, 3rd defendant of a pronote for Rs. 220 executed in the latter’s favour by defendants 1 and 2, who were ex parte throughout. The learned Small Cause Judge declined to pass any decree against the 3rd defendant on the ground that the plaintiff waited for an unreasonbaly long time before making a valid presentment and demand for payment and did not send the notice of dishonour in a reasonable time.

It is common ground that the plaintiff demanded payment from defendant, 1 and 2 in December, 1948, by notice Exhibit A-3, dated 23rd December, 1948, receipt of which was acknowledged by the 2nd defendant on a postal acknowledgment Exhibit A-5. There was no response from defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff then sent the promisee a notice of dishonour Exhibit A-2, dated 5th January, 1949. Under section 74 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a negotiable instrument payable on demand must be prese