JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note which was dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that there is a material alteration in the document inasmuch as the Hindi date was changed from 2 to 13 and the English date from 1 to 11,
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the promissory note was executed on 11. 12. 55 corresponding to Migsar Badi 13, Smt. 2012. THE present suit was instituted on 9. 12. 58. THE suit was contested by the defendant who denied both the execution as well as the consideration. In the alternative he pleaded that there was a material alteration in the English as well as the Hindi dates and that the rate of interest was excessive. THE plaintiff examined himself and also examined an attesting witness Ranjitmal. THE defendant neither appeared in the witness box himself nor produced any other witness to support his case. Both the courts held that the Hindi date was altered from 2 to 13 and the English date was altered from 1 to 11 to bring the suit within limitation. THE suit was instituted on 9. 12. 58. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that as the promissory note was attested it was converted into a bond, and the rule is that if there is alteration in a deed the presumption is that it was made before it was executed. For this proposition reliance is placed on Ramsukh Das Vs. Hafizul Rahman (1), Ramanathan Vs. Muthykumaru (2) and para 286 at page 226 of Halsbury's Laws of England, Hailsham Edition, Vol 10. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that the promissory note is to be treated as a bond for purposes of the Stamp Act only as it has been attested and it does not lose its character as a negotiable instrument. This contention appears to me to be correct. In the case of a negotiable instrument the presumption is that any alteration appearing on the face of the instrument was made subsequent to the issue of the instrument. The following decisions may be referred to in this connection. Subramania Vs. Porathna (3), Bassappa Vs. Marule Gowda (4), V. Kondiah Vs. C. P. Pulliah (5 ). I accordingly find that the burden lay on the plaintiff to explain the alterations which appeared on the face of the instrument. Both the courts below have held that the explanation offered by the plaintiff is not correct. I accordingly dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this revision application. . ;