K MJlJilQitMiJiI-GH.^CaJHT OF Cii^ATTISG^H AT ,BILASPIJR. CIVIL REVESIC^I N0. 14 OF 200^1W^ APPLICANT PLAINTIFF , Sevt/ak Ram son of Sukul Dewangan, aged about 68 years, Agricultu.cist, Resident of village Sukul Daihan, Tahsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon (C,G,) MBBJS NON- APpLIC/iNTS' BEFENlMTfS" ! ^--l.»5 Bucthram @ Budharu son of Mohan ^ \ ^ aged about 62 years Resident of A^'^^ L^Village Teka Hardi, Agriculturist, iS^W'' TahsU & Dxstt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) •'''c^'^''"''' ^ ,2^ chatur son of Bahur Singh Lodhi, ^ .••••'".<^y ^^^>"' .*•" ^- '^ ^ ^--aged about 53 years, shopkeeper and Agriculturist, village Litiya : • Tahsil & Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 6:JTi3 £l^L,,P£^M^U^OEH^ES23^Lil^O£^pEOF CIVIL_ PRQCEDURE ^' L^- ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPLICANT NON-APPLICANTS C.R. No. 14/2004 Sewak Raza Versus Budhram @ Budharu and ofhers SB: HONBLE SHRI N.K. AGRAWAL, J PRBSBNT:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ashpk Das Vaishnav, Adv. for fhe i^espondents. ORAL ORDER (17-11-2009) This revision arises out of the order dated II/12/2003 passed by the Distdct Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 1- B/2002. 1. 2. 3. 4. Facts briefly stated are as iinder:- Indisputably, the applicant sold some immovabte property to respondents for a consideration ofRs. 18,500/- on 16-3-1994 vide registered sale deed. As per the applicant's case, out of the above sale consideration of Rs. 18,500/-, an amount of Rs. 16,800/- was not paid at fhe time of execution of the sale deed by the non-applicant Later on, on 29-1-98, an acknowledgement Jetter was executed regarding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,800/- by the non-applicant acknowledging his liability and promising its payment wifhta a period of 2 monfhs (Ex. D-1). Leamed tnal Court as weU as appellate Coiirt dismissed the suit disbelieving the above said dociiment. Hence this revision. Shri H.B. Agrawal, leamed Sr. Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the aforesaid doeument is an admission of Uability by the non-applicant withiu the meanir^ of Order 12 Rule 6 ofthe C.P.C. and thercfore, the trial Coiirt -I ^K^ 6. ^ (xp as weH as the appeUate Court have committed gross illegalily in dismissing the siiit. Per contra, Shri Ashok Das Vaishnav, leamed counsel appearmg for the non-applicant would submit that the said document Ex. D-1 alleged to be executed after 4 months by obtaining non-applicant's signature under pressure within fhe premises of police station and, fherefore, leamed bofh fhe Courts below have rightly disbeUeved fhe said dociiment. He would further submit that the cause of action for fillng fhe suit arose on ttie date of execution of fhe sale deed. Since no suit has been filed wifhin 3 years from the date and the said document Ex. D-1 aUegedly to be executed after 4 years, is of no relevance and consequence and it does not ^ve any cause of action to the plaintiff. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused fhe impugned judgment It is trite law tfaat the acknowledgement after expiry of period of Mmitation is of no consequence, It does not extend lunitation. As per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, where, before the expiration of fhe prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liabUity in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any peraon through whom he derives his titie or liability, a fi^sh period of lunitation shall be computed from the time when fhe acknowledgement was so signed. Since admittedly the aUeged acknowledgement letter Bx. D-1 is said to be executed after expiratlon of prescribed period of limitation and, therefore, this will not ^ve any cause of action to fhe plaintiff to file a suit based on it Further leamed both the Courts below have disbelieved fhe said document based on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be peryerse. In view of the above, it cannot be said to be an admission wifhin fhe meaning of Order 12 Rule 6 offhe C.P.C., more so in the light 8. of fact that fhe said document has been executed after expiration of period of limitation. In view of fhe above, it cannot be said fhat bofh the Coiirts below have comioitted any jurisdictional UlegaMty in passing fhe impugned jud^nent and decree. Therefore, fhe revision being devoid of substances, is Uable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge