' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The respondent brought a suit for recovery of Rs,2,80,000 against the appellant on the basis of a pro note (Exh.P-1) with the attached receipt (Exh. P-2). The appellant applied for leave to appear and defend 'the suit, which was granted and out of the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the defendant got a loan of Rs,2,80,000 from the plaintiff and also executed promissory note, dated 15-4-2000 in this regard in favor of the plaintiff? OPP.
(2) If the above issue is proved, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for recovery- of Rs,2,80,000 as per plaint and as prayed for? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit has been filed by the plaintiff only to tease and torture the defendant, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD.
(6) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
(7) Whether the defendant is entitled to recover special costs from the plaintiff under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(8) Relief.
' The parties were unable to produce their evidence, the respondent proved the promissory note and the receipt, the appellant also lead evidence and the learned trial Court has allowed the suit in terms of the pro note.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contents that the adhesive stamps on the pro note had not been cancelled; moreover, the pro note was insufficiently stamped and therefore, was not admissible in evidence. It is also submitted that the suit of the respondent was barred by time under Article 5 of the Limitation Act as it has not been filed within a period of one year.
3. As regards the objection of non-cancellation of the adhesive stamps is concerned, suffice it to say, that the appellant has not taken this objection at the time when the pro note was tendered into evidence, therefore, under the rules such plea cannot be raised atthis stage. For the question that the suit should have been brought within one year it is held that Article 5 is inapplicable to the case in hand, where the suits based upon the pro notes are governed by Article 73, which has the period of three years and B the suit was brought within that time. No other argument has been addressed before this Court that the decree has not been impugned on merits. This appeal thus has no merits and is dismissed.