Order.- This Revision is by the defendant against whom a decree has been passed in a Small Cause Suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note. The promissory note is for a sum of Rs. 210 dated 5th September, 1953. There is an endorsement thereon dated 20th July, 1955 where under Rs. 23 had been paid. There is no dispute about this endorsement. The next endorsement bears no date-It is stated to have been made in July, 1958 and thereunder Rs. 27 has been paid. The defendant repudiated the very factum of endorsement. He questioned its-genuineness. The lower Court has found against the plea of the defendant that he did not make the second endorsement, and has decreed the suit presuming that the second endorsement must have been made in time. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant contends that it will not be sufficient to establish that a second endorsement has been made. It is submitted that it must be established further by evidence that it was made within three years after the first endorsement bearing the date 20th July, 1955. The endorsement in question purports to have been made in July, 1958 and no date is given. Learned Counsel draws my attention to the second sub-clause of section 19 of the Limitation Act which provides: “Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed.” The learned Counsel points out that there is absolutely no evidence as to the date of this endorsement. The first plaintiff as P.W.1 has not spoken about it, and there has been no suggestion to the defendant or his witness in cross-examination as to the date of the endorsement. The learned District Munsif observes that in the absence of evidence on the side of the defendants as to exactly when the endorsement was made the presumption must be that it was made within three years, of the date of the first endorsement. It must be noted that it is for the plaintiff to make out that his claim is within time. The date of the first endorsement is known. The second endorsement is made in July, 1958. Unless the second endorsement was made within 20th July, 1958, it will not help the plaintiff. It is for him therefore to make out that the second endorsement had been made within time. The date of the first endorsement is known. The second endorsement is made in July, 1958. Unless the second endorsement was made within 20th July, 1958, it will not help the plaintiff. It is for him therefore to make out that the second endorsement had been made within time. Under section 19 (2) oral evidence can be let in as to the date of the endorsement and it will be for the plaintiff to let in such evidence as they can as to the date of the endorsement. As already pointed out there has not even been a suggestion to the defendant and his witness in cross-examination as to when the second endorsement came to be made even leaving out the plaintiff’s evidence. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the case of the defendant was one of denial of the endorsement and he did not say that it was not made within time. There is little force in this argument. The defendant has specifically pleaded hat the claim is barred by limitation. No doubt the trial Court has held on the evidence that the second endorsement is a genuine one. But it has not found on evidence that the endorsement was made within time. Its decision is based on a legal presumption which has no basis in law. I do not find room for any such presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the only relevant presumption provided being that the endorsements were made in the order in which they appear on the negotiable instrument. This presumption cannot help the plaintiffs. In the result the suit has to fail and the revision succeed. The revision is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. The suit is dismissed but no costs to the defendant. R.M. ------- Revision allowed.