1. The plaintiff-appellant Mateshwar Dayal (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) sought to recover Rs. 3,490/(Rs. 3,000.00 as principal and Rs. 490.00 as interest thereon) from Amar Singh, defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) on the basis of pronote (Ext.P.1) dated 19th May, 1970.

2. The case as laid in the plaint by the plaintiff was that, he repeatedly asked the defendant to pay the said amount. He also sent a registered notice (Ext.P.4) to him on Jan. 27, 1971, to pay the amount covered by the pronote. Instead of paying the said amount, the defendant sent reply (Ext.P.3) dated Feb. 1, 1971, refuting his obligation and denying that he executed any pronote or took loan of any kind.

3. In the written statement, the defendant, inter alia, took the stand that there had been no presentment of the pronote and therefore he stood discharged of any obligation thereunder in view of the provisions of Secs.64 and 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. In the replication, the plaintiff, for one thing, averred that the presentation was not necessary and, for another, the pronote had been presented.

5. The tria