JUDGMENT 1. The only question raised in this appeal which arises out of a suit on a note of hand is, whether the Court of Appeal below was right in admitting oral evidence to show that one of the executants of the note signed it only as surety and that his liability was only to the extent of standing as a surety for one mouth. We are of opinion that the question should be answered in the negative. Sec. 92 of the Evidence Act excludes oral evidence for certain purposes for one of which it has been adduced in this case. The learned vakil for the Respondents contends that it is admissible and he cites the case of Pogose v. Bank of Bengal ILR 3 Cal. 174 (1877), as authority in support of his contention. There the acceptor of a bill of exchange was allowed to prove that he received no consideration. That case comes clearly within the scope of proviso (1). 2. Then the learned vakil for the Respondents referred us to Taylor on Evidence, 153, as showing that it was open to a party to prove that he signed a note as surety. That may be so in English Law. Here what we have to deal with is a positive legislative enactment. Unless the case comes under some one or other of the provisos of sec. 92, oral evidence would be inadmissible. This view is in accordance with that taken by the Privy Council in the case of Balkissen v. Legge 4 C.W.N. 153 : S.C. 27 I.A. 8 (1899). Then it was argued that the case might come under proviso (3) and it was said that the institution of a suit against the principal debtor within one month was a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the contract, and it was open to the Defendant No. 2 to prove this. But that is a wrong way of stating the defence. 3. The defence was that the understanding was that the Plaintiff was to recover money from Defendant No. 1 within a month after which the liability of Defendant No. 2 was to cease. This then was no case of the existence of a condition precedent to the attaching of any liability. 3. The defence was that the understanding was that the Plaintiff was to recover money from Defendant No. 1 within a month after which the liability of Defendant No. 2 was to cease. This then was no case of the existence of a condition precedent to the attaching of any liability. Here the liability attached from the date of the note of hand and ceased upon the expiry of one month, and the defence was not that no liability attached to the note of hand until some event happened or something was done. We are of opinion that oral evidence in this case is clearly inadmissible and the decree of the Court of Appeal below limiting the liability of Defendant No. 2 must be set aside and a decree must be given against him. There shall be a decree jointly and severally against the two Defendants. As however the question for the inadmissibility of oral evidence was not raised in either of the Courts below, we think the parties should bear their own costs in this Court.