JUDGMENT Latifur Rahman, J. - This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,451-12-9 including interest due on a promissory note executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff Bank on March 15th, 1941. The Plain case was that one Mohamed Shafi had an account with the Bank. In order to secure drafts he deposited certain bills. These bills were never paid and many of them were in the names of fictitious parties. The Bank contemplated criminal proceedings against Mohamed Shafi. Thereafter the Defendant Abdul Ghani, who is the father of Mohamed Shafi, approached the Bank and proposed to take upon himself the liability of his son. The bank wrote to the Defendant on October 25th, 1940, embodying certain terms, which the Defendant Abdul Ghani accepted by endorsing the letter. Thereafter in terms of the said letter certain payments made by Abdul Ghani. Subsequently the Defendant did not pay the instalments. Later on he came to the Bank and said that he was unable to pay. The Bank suggested that he should cute a promissory note in their favour for Rs. 6,500. The Defendant agreed and signed the promissory note on March 15th, 1941. The Defendant's case was that at the repeated request of the Plaintiff Bank to take up the liability of his son in terms of the agreement contained in the Plaintiff Hank's letter dated October 25th, 1940, the Defendant executed a promissory note on that date for Rs. 6,000 as security for the sum of Rs. 5.700, the amount then due by Mohamed Shafi to the Bank less Rs. 577-6-6 paid by the Defendant to the Bank on October 25th, 1940. The Plaintiff Bank had made material alterations in the original promissory note, and so it has become void and unenforceable. The promissory note dated October 25th, 1940, executed by the Defendant for Rs. 6,000 is barred by the law of limitation. 2. The following issues were framed :-- (1) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (2) Did the Plaintiff present the promissory note in suit as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint ? (3) Has there been any alteration in the promissory note in suit as alleged in paragraph 3 of the written statement ? (4) If there has been any such alteration, can the Plaintiff succeed in his claim ? (5) What amount, if any, is due to the Plaintiff ? (3) Has there been any alteration in the promissory note in suit as alleged in paragraph 3 of the written statement ? (4) If there has been any such alteration, can the Plaintiff succeed in his claim ? (5) What amount, if any, is due to the Plaintiff ? (6) If anything is due to the Plaintiff, what instalments should be granted ? 3. I shall first take up Issues Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. The Defendant Abdul Ghani in his evidence stated that he signed a promissory note for the sum of Rs. 6,000 on October 25th, 1940. He relied entirely upon Mazumdar, whom he believed to be the manager of the Bank. The Defendant did not know English and did not know what amount or date was inserted in the promissory note. He was, however, sure of the date October 25th, 1940, when he executed the promissory note for Rs. 6,000. From December, 1940, he was away from Calcutta and did not return till 1943. In the course of his evidence the Defendant narrated all that transpired between him and Mazumdar on the occasions when they met and how his signatures were taken on papers and books. 4. The Defendant called one Jan Saheb said to be an army contractor to support him. This witness deposed that one day while he was passing in a military lorry he saw the Defendant in a rickshaw near College Square. He got down from the lorry and stopped the rickshaw and requested the Defendant to supply him with four cobblers whose services were needed for a canteen. Later on the Defendant supplied two cobblers and promised to supply two more. Subsequently the witness went to the Defendant's place of residence and found him ill. The Defendant said that he was going away to his village. This was in December, 1940. Thereafter the witness made enquiries on several occasions and was informed that the Defendant had not returned. The witness met the Defendant again some time in 1943. 5. I do not think any reliance can be placed on the evidence of this witness. He had no personal knowledge of the Defendant's whereabouts from December, 1940, to some time in 1943, except that he was told on enquiries made by him that the Defendant was away. 6. The witness met the Defendant again some time in 1943. 5. I do not think any reliance can be placed on the evidence of this witness. He had no personal knowledge of the Defendant's whereabouts from December, 1940, to some time in 1943, except that he was told on enquiries made by him that the Defendant was away. 6. So far as the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff is concerned I see no reason to disbelieve it. It is admitted that the Defendant's son Mohamed Shafi, who had an account with the Plaintiff Bank, overdrew a large amount against securities which were not genuine. As the evidence has disclosed, and it is quite natural that the Defendant should be anxious that his son was not put into trouble, the Defendant approached the Bank and an agreement was arrived at and embodied in the Bank's letter dated October 25th, 1940. In terms thereof some payments were made by the Defendant, but he defaulted payment of subsequent instalments. Under these circumstances in trying to secure their dues, the Plaintiff Bank asked the Defendant to execute a promissory note for Rs. 6.500, which the Defendant did on March 15th, 1941. 7. The Defendant's evidence in the witness box about his illness and being away from Calcutta is nowhere pleaded in the written statement. 8. The whole of the Defendant's story seems to me to be improbable, and his evidence is unworthy of credence. 9. I find on the evidence that the promissory note for Rs. 6,500 was executed by the Defendant on March 15th, 1941. I find further that there has been no alteration in the promissory note by the insertion of the amount of Rs. 6,500 and the date March 15th, 1941. 10. In view of this finding I hold that the suit bring instituted in time is not barred by the law of limitation. 11. With regard to Issue No. 2, it has been contended on behalf of the Defendant that the promissory note in suit being payable at Calcutta, which is a specified place under the provisions of sec. 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it must be presented for payment before the cause of action can accrue. As it has not been presented, the suit must fail. 12. 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it must be presented for payment before the cause of action can accrue. As it has not been presented, the suit must fail. 12. Sec. 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is as follows :-- A promissory note or Bill of Exchange, made, drawn or accepted, payable at a specified place must, in order to charge the maker or drawer thereof, be presented for payment at that place. 13. Whether the place named for payment in a promissory note constitutes a specified place for this purpose must be a question to be decided according to the circumstances of each case [see AIR 1935 623 (Lahore) ]. In the present case the promissory note is made payable at Calcutta. The evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff was to the effect that the Plaintiff's agent Chaudhuri went to the place where the Defendant was to be found in Calcutta several times. On such occasions he had the promissory note with him. On each of such occasions the Defendant promised to pay the money at the Plaintiff Bank. According to the witness it appears that the durwan of the Plaintiff Bank had also been to the Defendant on several occasions to demand payment. This evidence, which I see no reason to disbelieve, clearly indicates that the employees of the Bank who went to make demands knew the place where the Defendant was to be found. In view of what the evidence discloses Calcutta constitutes the specified place for the purposes of presentment. 14. The next point that has been argued is as to the mode of presentment. It is contended that the duty of the holder, when he presents an instrument for payment, is to exhibit it to the per son from whom payment is demanded, and on receiving payment to deliver it up to the party paying it, and in support of this a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. II, p. 685, has been cited, and it was urged that when Chowdhury, the Bank's agent, went to demand payment of the Defendant he should have exhibited the promissory note which he said he had carried with him. This argument is not convincing. II, p. 685, has been cited, and it was urged that when Chowdhury, the Bank's agent, went to demand payment of the Defendant he should have exhibited the promissory note which he said he had carried with him. This argument is not convincing. For the holder of the negotiable instrument it may not always be the appropriate manner of approaching the person of whom he denial payment by exhibiting the instrument and then demanding payment. Where the holder of the promissory note is able to produce and show it to the maker of such instrument and deliver the same to him after receiving payment he is deemed to have complied with the provisions of sec. 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the purposes of presentment. In Hine v. Allely [1833] 4 B. & A. 624 where the holder went to the place at which the bill was addressed and found the house shut up, this was held to be sufficient evidence of presentment. In the present case I hold on the evidence that the Bank's Agent Chowdhuri duly presented the promissory note in suit at the specified place.