Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners in revision. They brought the suit on a promissory note, dated 4th August 1909, payable on demand. On that same date, however, a writing, Exhibit A1, was given by the drawer as follows: "Ten months thavanai (time for payment) from the date of the pro-note has been fixed for this note." Thus Exhibit A was in the words of Article 73 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act accompanied by a writing postponing the right to sue for ten months. The present suit was brought on the 30th June 1913, more than three years from the date of the promissory note, 4th August 1909, but within the limitation period of three years from the expiry of the ten months period and within the period of the extension given by the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which permits the plaintiff to institute a suit on the day on which the Court re-opens if the time expired during the vacation of the Court. The Subordinate Judge, relying on Somasundaram Chettiar v. Narasimha Chariar 29 M. 212; 16 M.L.J. 103 which followed Simon v. Hakim Mahomed Sheriff 19 M. 368 held that the writing which evidences the agreement to give time for payment