MISHRA, J.

1. Plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court, against judgment by a learned single Judge under which he has held that a promissory note said to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 who are father and son in his favour on 25.11.1976 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is not valid in law. According to the plaintiff/appellant, the date of the promissory note and the name of the promisee were not filled up in the promissory note and the defendants had authorised the plaintiff to fill up those particulars himself. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit without filling those particulars but sought permission of the Court and after such permission filled up those particulars and re-filed the original promissory note. According to the plaintiff/appellant when the defendants failed to pay the interest due under the promissory note for two months, he pressed for the same and the third defendant viz. the wife of the first defendant executed a letter of guarantee on 1.2.1977 for repayment of the loan. Learned single Judge has noted in his order.

“All the three defendants executed the letter of guarantee in favour of the