can be seen that the three persons comprising as executant No.1 have undertaken to repay `5,00,000/- borrowed from the plaintiff within 11 months from the date of Ext.A1 (08.04.2008). It is specifically mentioned in Ext.A1 that they have undertaken to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The terms and conditions in Ext.A1 do not show that the undertaking therein amounts to an unconditional undertaking to pay on demand as required in the case of a promissory note. Tenor of the document clearly show that it can only be described as an agreement and not as a promissory note. If Ext.A1 is viewed as an agreement, the relevant article under the Limitation Act will be Article 28. It says that a suit on a single bond where a day is specified for payment shall be instituted in three years from the day specified for payment. Here, as per Ext.A1, payment was intended to be made within 11 months from 08.04.2008. The suit was instituted on 02.11.2011. If Ext.A1 is construed as an agreement between the parties to repay an existing debt, then the suit is well within the limitation. We find no reason to hold that Ext.A1 is a promissory note. None of the parties have such a case. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the court below that Ext.A1 is a promissory note is indefensible.
