acknowledgement of liability. Further, it is also stated that the endorsement made by the respondent/promissee on the reverse of the promissory note would save the limitation is unknown to law and allow to them in the absence of valid acknowledgement of liability by the revision petitioner between the period 25.05.2000 to 01.04.2009 will not save the limitation in respect of the borrowing alleged to have made on 25.05.2000. By very much noted in the order that the Ex.R1 being a forged promissory note, it will not save the limitation in respect of the amount paid by the respondent on on 25.05.2000. But only for the purpose of saving the limitation that there was an alleged execution of endorsement made in the pronote, which was enclosed in Page Nos.12 and 13, which was shows that on 31.03.2006, the petitioner has endorsed on the back side by paying a sum of Rs.7,500/-, this would clearly proved that when the alleged pronote was executed on 01.04.2009, how the endorsement would be made on 31.03.2006 and how the trial Court has accepted the said Ex.R1, there is a totally confused in the pronote namely Ex.R1. But, the learned Judge, without noting the same and without applying the mind, had simply dismissed the application.
