1. The question raised in this case by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge has already been decided on the 20th of March 1877 in this Court by Melvill and Kemball, JJ., in Raghoji v. Abdul Karim (I.L.R. 1 Bom. 590). A copy of the judgment in that case is herewith forwarded to the First Class Subordinate Judge. In addition to the cases mentioned in it, the observations of the Court in Tilakchand Hindumal v. Jitamal Sudaram (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 206; see pp. 214, 215) as to the reason for upholding a promise to pay a debt barred by the Law of Limitation, may be referred to.
2. Having come to the opinion that the plaintiff is not prevented by the Indian Limitation Act, 1871, Section 20(a), from maintaining a substantive action on the new notes (exhibits 3 and 4), his right to bring such an action being recognized by Section 25, Clause 3, of the Indian Contract Act, which is the later enactment, we must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and remand this cause for a new trial on the merits.