' Through this appeal appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 'Vehari dated 9.6.2005 whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff- respondent for Rs:40,500/- on the basis of Promissory Note has been decreed.
2. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that the endorsement on the Promissory Note makes it defective whereby it has been mentioned that the appellant- defendant will pay the amount on 15.1.1987, as the Promissory Note is dated 15.7.1986. It is contended that to make the suit within limitation this endorsement has been made otherwise the suit is barred by time when it was filed on 17.7.1989. Further that the evidence produced by the plaintiff- respondent is contradictory and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable under the law. Prays for acceptance of this appeal and setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2005 and further that Article 73 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable and learned trial Court has wrongly applied Article 72 of the Schedule-I of the Limitation Act, 1908.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff argues that judgment and decree has been passed strictly in accordance with law and 'Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable as the date was fixed for 15.1.1987. States that even the Petition Writer, who has been produced as PW-1, has fully proved the case of the plaintiff-respondent and through the cross- examination upon the other witnesses produced by the plaintiff nothing beneficial to the case of the appellant-defendant could be derived.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The case of appellant-defendant was of a total denial and on the other side he cannot challenge the contents of the Promissory Note also. There is no bar while mentioning a future fixed date for demand of the money from the drawer of the Promissory Note. The definition of the Promissory Note has been given in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act No. XXVI of 1881, which is reproduced for ready reference:- "Promissory Note. A "promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay [on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time] a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or the bearer of the instrument."
' In these circumstances, when the case of the appellant-defendant is of total denial, therefore, he cannot further challenge the contents of the Promissory Note, which has been duly "proved by the plaintiff-respondent. When a date was fixed for repayment and the plaintiff-respondent demanded the same thereafter and on non-fulfillment of obligation by appellant-defendant the suit was filed in accordance with Article 72 of the Limitation'Act, 1908, same is within time, therefore, rightly decreed. Even otherwise, presumptions mentioned under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act No. XXVI of 1881 are attached with the negotiable instrument, the defendant/appellant was required to rebut the same but he failed to do so. No case for interference in the impugned judgment and decree has been made out, therefore, this appeal stands dismissed.