JUDGMENT Rampini and Mitra, JJ. - This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca dated the 21st of June 1900. The suit was one brought upon a hundi; and the Subordinate Judge has given the Plaintiff a decree against the Defendant No. 1, the acceptor of the hundi and dismissed the suit as against the Defendant No. 2, the drawer of the hundi, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not give him any notice of dishonour. Plaintiff now appeals against the decision. 2. The learned pleader for the Appellant argues that it was not necessary to give notice, because the Defendant has not shown that he has suffered any damage for want of notice. We think, however, that it is plain from the terms of Sections 30 and 93 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that notice was absolutely necessary to give the Plaintiff a cause of action and notice can only be dispensed with under the circumstances mentioned in Section 98 of that Act. The Plaintiff has not shown that any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 98 exists. Therefore, we think that the suit was rightly dismissed. 3. We are supported in this conclusion by the rulings in the cases of Krishnashet v. Hari Valji Bhatye ILR (1895) Bom. 488 and Moti Lal v. Moti Lal ILR (1883) All. 78. It is for the Plaintiff to show that notice was given, or that the Defendant could not suffer damage for want of it. It was not for the Defendant to show that he had suffered damage for want 01 notice. As a matter of fact, the Defendant raised in his written statement the plea that he had received no notice, so it lay upon the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant could not suffer any damage for want of notice. But he has not done so. The appeal is dismissed with costs.