Pandalai, J.

1. In this case the learned Additional Subordinate Judge dismissed a suit upon a promissory note as being barred by limitation, and the only question in this petition is whether that decision was right. The suit as originally framed was on a promissory note for Rs. 540 dated 11th May 1926. This was admittedly insufficiently stamped and, therefore, inadmissible as a promissory note. When this was discovered the plaintiff asked for leave and was granted leave to amend his plaint, as one on a previous promissory note of which the one dated. 11th May 1926 was a renewal. The suit thus became one on a promissory note dated 22nd May 1923 which was properly stamped. On the date of the suit the note of 22nd May 1923 would be barred if it were not saved by some intervening acknowledgment and the plaintiff purported to use the contents of the promissory note dated 11th May 1926 as an acknowledgment to save limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it could not be so used and hence dismissed the suit. The note which is in the Tamil language when translated is in the following terms:

The sum due to you on looking into accounts of a promissory note given for money bo