JUDGMENT

Addison, J. - The plaintiff firm sued the minor Lajjia Ram for the recovery of Rs. 13,353-4-0, alleged to be due on a pronote for Rupees 11500 said to have been executed by his deceased father, Rai Sahib Balmokand, on 30th October 1933. The minor's fat her died towards the end of 1935 and the present suit was instituted; on 12th December 1936. According to the plaint, interest was paid up to 22nd August 1934, while Rs. 200 towards interest were paid by cheque on 26th April 1935. It was further claimed that limitation was extended by the circumstance that the minor's guardian, Rai Bahadur Ganga Ram, acknowledged this debt in the list of debts prepared for the information of the Court in the guardianship application, It was pleaded that both the payment of Rs. 200 and this acknowledgment saved limitation. The minor's guardian pleaded that the pronote was executed by Balmokand but it was denied that the sum of Rs. 200 was paid towards interest on this pronote. It was further denied that the mention of the debt in the list referred to was an acknowledgment which saved limitation.

2. When the suit was instituted the pronote was not put into Court. Only a copy of it was filed with the plaint and in this copy only two signatures of Balmokand are shown, namely one at the bottom of the pronote and one on the four one-anna stamps which were affixed at the head of the pronote. This copy was made by P. W. 10, Salamat Ali, clerk of Lala Manohar Lal, pleader. He deposed that he wrote this copy to the dictation of the plaintiff but he had-seen the pronote himself. He could not remember how many signatures he had seen on the four stamps at the head of the pronote. The plaintiff as a witness has deposed that two pleaders, namely Lala Manohar Lal, already mentioned and another, namely Mahabir Parshad, had seen the pronote before the plaint was written. Neither of these two pleaders were however examined by him. When the pronote was put into Court on 16th February 1937, the date fixed for framing issues, counsel for the defendant immediately objected to the pronote on the ground that there had been a material alteration therein, namely that two extra signatures had been put on the two upper stamps in very faded ink whereas the other two signatures at the bottom of the pronote and on the lower stamps, are in a very thick ink. It was pleaded that those two faded signatures were not those of the deceased Balmokand and that as all four stamps had not been properly cancelled the pronote was inadmissible in evidence.

3. At that stage the plaintiff explained that all four signatures on the pronote, that is the one at the bottom and the three on the stamps were genuine signatures of Balmokand, all four being written at the time of the execution. After Balmokand had signed at the bottom and had also signed the thick signature on the stamps, the plaintiff pointed out to him that the upper stamps had not been cancelled and therefore Balmokand at once wrote the two additional signatures on the two upper stamps and dried them by putting sand over them. The circumstance that sand was put over them was probably mentioned in order to explain why these two upper signatures were so faded in comparison with the body of the pronote and the two other signatures, but the explanation is a very poor one, as, if the two extra signatures were put on at once, the ink and thickness would have been the same as the others. The trial Judge held that the payment of Rs. 200 by cheque was not made towards a cloth account and that the acknowledgment of the guardian in the list mentioned also saved limitation. He further found that the two signatures on the top two stamps were added subsequently. He considered that the fact that a stamp had not been cancelled was discovered at the time when the plaintiff went to Court to get his plaint written and that the original pronote was not then filed with the plaint in order to see what could be done about it. Having held that the pr