Judgment :- 1. The short question for consideration in this case is whether the suit, out of which the Civil Revision Petition has arisen, is barred by limitation or not. 2. The 1st defendant and two others executed the suit promissory note on 19th August 1953 in favour of the plaintiff. On 14th January 1957 the 1st defendant made an endorsement on the note; and thereafter, on 28th November 1959, the suit was brought. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation; and the learned Munsiff, following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sheo Shanker Bhatt v. Moti Lal Selhat AIR. 1947 All. 199 dismissed the suit, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. It is the correctness of that decision that is being challenged before me. 3. The promissory note would have normally become barred on 19th August 1956, but for Madras Ordinance V of 1953 and Madras Acts V of 1954 and I of 1955. Under these statutes, the plaintiff gets the period of limitation extended by over one year and six months. If this period is also added, the endorsement would be in time to save the promissory note from limitation. But the contention of the defendants, which found favour with the learned Munsiff, is that under S.19 and 20 of the Limitation Act the acknowledgment should be within the period of limitation prescribed by that Act and not by any other Act. It has been so laid down in the Allahabad decision already referred to. But in the later Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Firm Kamla Prasad Jagannath Prasad v. Gulzari Lal AIR. 1955 All. 41 (F.B.) five judges of that Court have held that where a Provincial Act has been validly passed and it makes it obligatory on the courts to exclude a period in computing the period of limitation, the courts have to exclude that period, and if after excluding that period, a suit or an application can be filed by a certain date, any acknowledgment or payment made in accordance with the provisions of S.19 and 20, after the period of limitation has expired but within the extended period, should be deemed to be an acknowledgment or payment made within the period prescribed for the filing of the suit or application. This Full Bench decision, as is evident, has overruled the earlier decision. 4. This Full Bench decision, as is evident, has overruled the earlier decision. 4. The same view has been expressed in the Madras decision in Sayada Gounder v. Veerappa Gounder (1959) I Q. 312. Ramachandra Iyer, J., in considering the same statutes, viz., Ordinance V of 1953 and Acts V of 1954 and I of 1955, has followed the Allahabad Full Bench decision of five judges. 5. In the case before me, the acknowledgment by the 1st defendant was before the expiry of the extended period of limitation under the Madras statutes and is therefore a valid acknowledgment, which has the effect of keeping alive the liability. The suit, having been brought within three years from the date of such acknowledgment, is within time; and the view of the learned Munsiff that the suit is barred by limitation is erroneous. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the suit is decreed against the 1st defendant as prayed for. The plaintiff will get his costs in this Court; but in the lower court, the parties will suffer their costs. Allowed.