Express written promise required to revive a time-barred debt; mere acknowledgment on a promissory note is insufficient.

Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies only where the debtor makes an express written and signed promise to pay a debt barred by limitation. Read with Section 9, the promise must be clear on the face of the writing; a mere acknowledgment of liability, or words from which a promise is only implied, is insufficient. An endorsement on a promissory note stating that the note was accepted and valid for the next three years did not contain an express undertaking to pay the time-barred debt. The endorsement therefore did not satisfy Section 25(3), and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the endorsement on the promissory note amounted to a promise in writing to pay a debt barred by limitation within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, so as to support the suit.

Analysis: Section 25(3) requires a promise made in writing and signed by the debtor to pay wholly or in part a debt barred by limitation. Read with Section 9 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the promise contemplated by the provision must be express and clear in the writing itself. A mere acknowledgment of liability, or language from which a promise can only be implied, is insufficient. The endorsement in question only accepted the promissory note and stated that it was valid for the next three years. It did not contain words showing an express undertaking to pay the debt, nor did it indicate a fresh promise to pay the time-barred amount.

Conclusion: The endorsement was not a promise to pay within Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The appeal succeeded and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A debt barred by limitation can be enforced under Section 25(3) only on the basis of an express written promise to pay; a mere acknowledgment, even if it suggests continued liability, does not suffice.

---