S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) DOUBTING the correctness of the decision rendered by a learned single judge of this court in S. Laxmaiah (DIED) per L. Rs v. Venkateswara Rao (DIED) per LRs. this reference has been made to this Bench by the another learned Single Judge. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. A promissory note was executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent. The said promissory note was transferred in favour of the revision petitioner. The promissory note was executed on 27-10-92. The revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of the amount on the basis of the said promissory note on 27-10-95. Originally the suit was decreed as against the 1st respondent only, and dismissed as against 2nd respondent. In revision filed there against, the learned Single Judge of this Court in c. R. P. No. 5156 of 97 remitted the case to the trial Court for consideration on the question of limitation. The learned Court below dismissed the suit on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. In support of the said finding, reliance has been placed by the learned Court below on s. Laxmaiah s. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the suit promissory note, was dated 27-10-92 and the suit was filed on 27-10-95 and for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, 27-10-92 cannot be reckoned in view sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the limitation Act, 1963 which is in the following terms:- "12. Exclusion of the time in legal proceedings:- (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid provision, there cannot be any doubt, that the time for filing this suit must be counted from 28-10-92 and if so done, this suit filed on 27-10-95 would be within the period of three years. The suit was therefore not barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. Unfortunately, learned Counsel for the parties therein (in S. Laxmaiah s case (1 supra) evidently did not bring the aforesaid provision to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The said decision was thus rendered per incuriam and is not a good law and it is accordingly overruled. The suit was therefore not barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. Unfortunately, learned Counsel for the parties therein (in S. Laxmaiah s case (1 supra) evidently did not bring the aforesaid provision to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The said decision was thus rendered per incuriam and is not a good law and it is accordingly overruled. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the fact that suit has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Court below for determination of other issues, if any. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 1995, we direct the learned Court below to dispose of the matter an early date, in any case not later than two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. ( 6 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs.