Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. In my view, this Civil Revision Petition must be dismissed with costs although that result is reached by coming to a different decision upon the point of limitation to that reached by the learned Subordinate Judge. It seems to have been conceded in the lower Court that the promissory note Ex. B was insufficiently stamped and the suit was not brought upon the promissory note at all. The only use to which it was put at the trial was as an acknowledgment of his debt to remove the bar of limitation which otherwise was obviously in the way of the claim, the amount sued for having been due on the 30th November, 1929, and the suit filed on the 10th March, 1934. The learned trial Judge held that although the note could not be used as a promissory note it could nevertheless be used as an acknowledgment of the defendants liability for the debt sued upon and he relied upon the decisions in Vancheswara v. Narayana AIR1933Mad251 and Rakkappan v. Suppiah AIR1930Mad485 . The learned Subordinate Judge had not got before him the unreported decision of a Bench of this Court to which I myself was a party in K.M. Subbayyar and Sons v. P.N. Lakshmana Aiy