S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj
Order dt: 19/2/2009.
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs. Pukhraj s/o Mohan Lal
S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005
DATE OF ORDER : 19/2/2009
PRESENT
HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
None present for the petitioner.
Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the respondent.
1. Heard learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order of learned
District Judge, Sirohi dated 12/10/2004, whereby, the learned District
Judge has upheld the judgment and decree of learned trial court dated
30/10/2003 for recovery of sum of Rs.25,000/- in a suit filed by
plaintiff on 25/8/2000.
3. The courts below have however dismissed the suit as barred by
limitation deciding issue no.3 against the plaintiff as the loan
agreement in question – Ex.1 was dated 20/9/1996, whereas, suit was
S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj
Order dt: 19/2/2009.
2/4
filed on 25/8/2000 though other issues were decided in favour of the
plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent defendant Mr.Rakesh Arora
submits that in view of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act read
with Schedule -item no.19 period of three years expired in the year
1999 and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff on 25/8/2000 has
been rightly rejected by the courts below.
5. However, the perusal of impugned order of the learned trial
court and document Ex.1, the agreement in question, reveals that
some repayment were made by the defendant from time to time to the
plaintiff to the extent of Rs.14660/-, the details of these payments are
given at the back of Ex.1 itself, as under; Rs.5000/- on 1.11.1996,
Rs.2000/- on 17/1/1997, Rs.3000/- on 06/5/1997, Rs.2000/- on
11/6/1997, Rs.2000/- on 19/3/1998. On the top of back of Ex.1
Rs.660/- is also said to have deposited by defendant on 20/10/1996,
thus, total of Rs.14,660/- was paid by the defendant under the said
loan agreement dated 20/9/1996 for Rs.22,000/-. Thus, the suit filed
by the plaintiff on 25/8/12000 was apparently within the period of
S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj
Order dt: 19/2/2009.
3/4
three years from the last repayment on 19/3/1998 of Rs.2000/-.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent defendant Mr.Arora
submits that since there is no signed acknowledgment on behalf of
defendant on the said document Ex.1, therefore, it cannot be
construed as an acknowledgment of debt on behalf of defendant and,
therefore, the suit was barred by limitation as the period is to be
counted from the date of loan itself dated 20/9/1996.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Rakesh
Arora, this Court finds no force in the submission made by learned
counsel for the respondent defendant. The admission of execution of
document Ex.1 and his signatures from A to B on the said document
and another document of defendant himself which the learned counsel
for the defendant produced during the course of arguments under
which the dates and amount of repayemnt as given by the appellant
exactly tallies, goes to show that these payments were admittedly
made though may be against principal sum or against the interest. The
acknowledgment of the said loan transaction admittedly continued
till 19/3/1998, therefore, the period of limitation can be said to
S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj
Order dt: 19/2/2009.
4/4
commence only after the said date 19/3/1998 and thus suit filed on
25/8/2000 could not be held to be time barred. Therefore, the courts
below have erred in holding the suit barred by limitation. Issue no.3
of limitation is thus decided in favour of plaintiff. Decree be made
accordingly. Revised decree for recovery with interest be made by
learned trial court.
8. Consequently, this revision petition of plaintiff petitioner is
allowed and the impugned order dated 12/10/2004 and 30/10/2003
are quashed and set aside to the extent of issue no.3 while rest of the
said order is maintained. Copy of this order be sent to the petitioners.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no.61
baweja/-