JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J.- This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note executed on 26th April, 1960. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that after the execution of the promissory note the appellant paid Rs. 25/- on 25th April, 1963. This payment amounted to payment of interest and as such was an acknowledgment and, therefore, the suit was within time. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that he did not borrow the amount. It was further alleged that the suit was barred by time. 2. The trial court decreed the suit on 14th August, 1972. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed. The appeal was also dismissed on 19th September, 1972. Against the judgment dated 19th September, 1972 the present second appeal has been filed in this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the suit was barred by time and as such decree can be passed on the basis of the promissory note dated 26th April, 1960. 4. The promissory note in dated 26th April, 1960 for a sum of Rs. 600/-. On 25th April, 1963 there is an endorsement on the back of the promissory note in the hand writing of the appellant that a sum of Rs. 25/- was paid towards interest. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether this writing on the back of the promissory note would amount to acknowledgment within the meaning of Sections 18 and 19 to the Limitation Act, 1963. The lower appellate court has found as a fact that the amount in fact was not paid on 25th April 1963 but was paid on 8th June 1960. Section 18 of the Limitation Act provides that where before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation any person makes an acknowledgement of liability in writing signed by the party concerned the period of limitation would be extended Section 19 of the Limitation Act provides further that where payment of interest is made before the expiration of the prescribed period a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. 5. In the instant case the endorsement is in the hand writing of the appellant. 5. In the instant case the endorsement is in the hand writing of the appellant. The endorsement does not specifically say that the period of limitation is extended but such is not the requirement of law. The requirement only is that an acknowledgement must be made in writing by a party. In the instant case as I have already observed above the endorsement of payment of interest was written by the appellant in his hand writing. This clearly implies that he had acknowledged the liability in writing signed by him. In view of Section 18 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation would be extended. 6 In the alternative even under Section 19 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation would be extended if payment of interest is made before the expiration of the prescribed period. It is no doubt true that the payment has been found to be made on 8th June 1960 but the appellant agreed that this payment be treated as payment made on 25th April 1963 and it was, therefore, that he made this endorsement on the back of the promissory note in his own hand writing. In the circumstances in law the payment would be deemed to have been made on 25th April, 1963. In view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation would be extended. In either case whether Section 19 applies or Section 18 of the Limitation Act applies the suit was well within time. 7. In the result there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.