JUDGMENT Tyabji, J. 1. The question is whether , the 2nd defendant ought to have been exonerated from his suretyship under Section 135 of the Indian Contract Act. 2. Damodar Das v. Muhammad Hussain 22 A. 351 : A.W.N. (1900) 106. is relied upon by the petitioner to show that the promise to give time must be for consideration. However, it seems that the facts in the present case were to the following effect : the 1st defendant asked for time : the 2nd defendant agreed to give it and on this, the 1st defendant paid part of the debt.. This part-payment may be taken to be the consideration for the promise to give time. If this is so then the learned Judge below was right and the petition will be dismissed but without costs.