JUDGMENT 1. The facts of this case are as follows:-- The Plaintiff is the holder of a hundi payable at sight drawn by one Piar Baksh of Kishengunge in the Purnea District on Abdus Sobhan, a hide broker in Calcutta. The hundi was presented to Abdus Sobhan, along with 2 bills of lading for parcels of hides despatched by Piar Baksh to Calcutta. Abdus Sobhan accepted the hundi and promised to pay within 3 days. Subsequently he paid Rs. 1,027 out of Rs. 4,000, the amount of the hundi. After about a month, he became bankrupt. The date of the hundi was the 19th January, Notice of dishonour was not given to Piar Baksh till the 29th January. Now, the Plaintiff, the holder of the hundi, sues Piar Baksh, the drawer, for the balance due to him, Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit on substantially the same grounds viz., (1) that the notice of dishonour was not given in due time and (2) that the drawer was discharged by the holder of the note giving time to the acceptor to pay the money--an arrangement not notified to the drawer, nor acqulesced in by him. The Plaintiff appeals and, on his behalf, It has been urged (1) the question of the acceptance by Abdus Sobhan having been a qualified one was not raised in the pleadings or issues; (2) that there was no qualified acceptance as such an acceptance must be in writing; (3) that if the question was and could be raised, there was acquiescence on the part of the drawer and (4) that the question of the notice of dishonour not having been given in time was not raised in the issues or pleadings--that the notice was given in time and that the drawer was not prejudiced by the delay. 2. We consider, however, that the decisions of the lower Courts are correct. It is clear that the acceptor at first accepted the hundi unconditionally in consideration of the 2 bills of lading for the parcels of hides attached to the hundi. He subsequently said he would pay in 3 days and did not so pay. The holder of the note agreed to receive the money in 3 days' time, and did not give notice to the drawer of this arrangement and did not even give him notice of dishonour till about 10 days subsequently. He subsequently said he would pay in 3 days and did not so pay. The holder of the note agreed to receive the money in 3 days' time, and did not give notice to the drawer of this arrangement and did not even give him notice of dishonour till about 10 days subsequently. We consider that this conduct of the Plaintiff according to the terms of secs. 30, 39 and 86 of the Negotiable Instruments Act discharged the drawer and that the Plaintiff cannot now recover from the drawer, the Defendant No. 1. 3. The pleas that the questions of the acceptance having been qualified and of the notice of dishonour not having been given in due time were not raised in the pleadings as issues are purely technical pleas devoid of all substance. The parties very well understood the matters at issue between them and they were sufficiently raised in the first issue framed by the Subordinate Judge. The parties must have well understood that notice of dishonour should have been given without undue delay and, whether they understood it or not, this is undoubtedly the law. As the District Judge has pointed out, the Plaintiff is on the horns of a dilemma. Either he did not give notice of dishonour in due time or he agreed to payment at a subsequent date, of which notice was not given to the drawer and in which there is nothing to show he ever acquiesced. In either case the Defendant No. 1 Is relieved of his liability under the hundi. We dismiss the appeal with costs.