Short Note : 1. The only point which was canvassed before me was whether the Court below was right in holding that the time for the performance had been extended up to December, 1965. As such answer to that question will decide this appeal. Held: Before I proceed to answer the point raised it would be better to refer to section 63 of the Contract Act. That section provides that every promisee may dispense with or remit, wholly or in part, the performance of the promise made to him, or may extend the time for such performance. For extension of time under section 63, it is now well settled that mutual consent is necessary. [See Indore United Malwa Mills, Indore v. Basantilal Suresh Kumar, Ujjain ( 1969 JLJ 204 D. B.)]. 2. When I proceed to examine the evidence on record, I find in para 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff has mentioned that on receipt of his notice the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 500 to him in the presence of Sunilkumar Verma (P. W. 3) and M. S. K. Khokhar at his own house. The balance of Rs 1,500 was promised to be paid by the defendant in the month of December 1965. The plaintiff has based his cause of action when the defendant failed to pay the balance of amount in December 1965 as promised. The oral evidence of the plaintiff (P.W. 4) does not go beyond what has been stated in the plaint. His witness Sunilkumar Verma (P. W 3) stated that when Rs 500 were paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, the defendant had stated that he may accept Rs. 500 for the time being while the balance of Rs, 1,500 he would pay later and the plaintiff kept mum without speaking anything in that regard. The conduct of the plaintiff is also very much material for purposes of determination about his consent for extension of time. There is no reason why the plaintiff should have awaited for all these long years unless he had not consented to the extension of time. He did so, filed ample corroboration from his notice (Ex P-1) dated 13-4-1968 in which he had made a demand from defendant for the balance of Rs. There is no reason why the plaintiff should have awaited for all these long years unless he had not consented to the extension of time. He did so, filed ample corroboration from his notice (Ex P-1) dated 13-4-1968 in which he had made a demand from defendant for the balance of Rs. 1,500 mentioning specifically therein in that he had promised to pay the said amount by December 1965 and as he failed to fulfil the promise the plaintiff served that notice on him. This notice remained unreplied by the defendant. The defendant (D.W. 1) in his statement did not explain the reason for abstaining to reply the said notice. Much was tried to be made from the evidence of Sunilkumar Verma (P.W. 3) when he stated that plaintiff kept mum on saying of the defendant that the balance of Rs. 1,500 would be paid later. But the fact of silence, as I feel, clearly meant that he had no objection for extension of time. I may mention here that no question was put to plaintiff' (P. W. 4) when he appeared in the witness box that he never consented to extend the time. As regards the defendant, he examined himself alone as D. W. 1 and stated that no deposit of Rs. 2,000 was ever made with him and also his repaying Rs 500. The Course below has dis-believed his evidence and even I hold the same view about his evidence. 1969 JLJ 204 and AIR 1958 SC 512 relied on. Appeal dismissed.