JUDGMENT

Kaul, J. - Though the opposite-party has not cared to appear at the hearing, all the facts and the law bearing thereon were placed before ma by Mr. Nairn Ullah, Counsel for the applicant. The matter for consideration is whether the suit: brought in the Court below was barred by time.

2. It appears that a promissory note for Rs. 200 was executed by Surat Singh in favour of the present applicant, Bhan Pra- tap Singh, on the 10th of August, 1937. A suit for recovery of the amount due under the note was instituted by Bhan Pratap Singh on the lltfc. of December, 19+1. The promissory note purported to be payable on demand, and as the suit was instituted more than three years after the note was executed, it would ordinarily be barred by time. Reliance was, however, placed by the plaintiff on Section 5 of Local Act X of 1937 which enacted that

in computing the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908, or any other law for the time being in force for

(a) the institution of a suit in a Civil Court against an agriculturist for money or foreclosure . or sale in enforcement of a mortgage, and

(b) the execution of such decree as is referred to in Section 3, and not covered