JUDGMENT
Miller, J.
1. I agree with the decision in Govind Das v. Sarju Das 30 AA. 268 : 5 A.L.J. 274 : 129 A.W.N. (1908), which is in point. Even if the acknowledgment balance due 80 “rupees” implies a promise, it does not seem to me to be the promise required by Section 25 of the Contract Act. There is nothing to show that the debtor recognized that the debt was irrecoverable and still promised to pay it, and the promise to which Section 25 refers seems to me to be a promise to pay despite the consciousness that the debt is barred. The petition is dismissed with costs.